Departmental Travel

Angus MacNeil: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what travel  (a) he and  (b) the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Scotland undertook in respect of attendance at the Scottish Labour Party conference on 7 and 8 April 2009.

Ann McKechin: The Scotland Office did not make any travel arrangements for either the Secretary of State or the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State regarding their attendance at the Scottish Labour Party Conference.

Aviation: Safety

Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the Air Accident Investigation Branch's interim report of 13 March 2009 on the incident at Heathrow Airport on 17 January 2008, when he expects the modifications to the Rolls Royce Trent 800 engine to prevent critical power loss due to ice crystals to be made to all aircraft with that engine operating from the UK; and if he will make a statement.

Jim Fitzpatrick: Boeing and Rolls Royce are already working to develop appropriate modifications to the B777 aircraft and the Fuel Oil Heat Exchanger on the Rolls Royce Trent 800 engine. Once the modifications have been developed they will need to be approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). The Civil Aviation Authority will then ensure that UK airlines make the modifications within the timescale set by EASA.
	Since the accident at Heathrow in January 2008 Boeing has developed a range of changes to the aircrafts operating procedures to ensure that aircraft crews can minimise and manage any risk associated with potential ice accumulation in the fuel system. These procedures have been approved by EASA and the US Federal Aviation Administration (US FAA) and have been made mandatory for all US and European airlines. Both EASA and the US FAA are content that, subject to the application of these procedures, B777 aircraft with Rolls Royce Trent engines are safe to remain in service. When a Delta Airlines Boeing 777 experienced an uncommanded power reduction in a single engine on 26 November 2008 the procedures were shown to be effective and thrust control of the engine was recovered.

Motor Vehicles

Stephen Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the answer of 9 March 2009,  Official Report, column 12W, on motor vehicles, if he will publish the results of the research from the recent comparison of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency vehicle register and motor insurance database when it is available.

Jim Fitzpatrick: Yes. The information will be placed in the Libraries of the House when available.

Bovine Tuberculosis: Disease Control

James Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 23 March 2009,  Official Report, columns 44-46W, on bovine tuberculosis, for how many head of cattle he has budgeted for compensation payments for reactors and contact animals in 2009-10.

Jane Kennedy: We do not estimate compensation spend solely on the basis of head of cattle since spend is demand led and much will depend on the disease situation and prevailing cattle prices (since compensation payments are linked to market prices). The estimate of £23 million provided in the answer of 23 March 2009,  Official  Report, columns 44-46W, is based on what was spent in previous years and the spending pattern in the current year (forecast spend for 2008-09, net of receipts, is £25.7 million). The estimate includes payments to cattle-owners and haulage costs, and was offset by salvage receipts.

Food Supply

David Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what method his Department uses to calculate the level of  (a) domestic self-sufficiency in food production and  (b) domestic food consumption; and what the level of each was in each of the last 20 years.

Jane Kennedy: Self-Sufficiency in food is calculated as UK food production, adjusted for trade in agricultural inputs of feed, seed and livestock, as a proportion of UK food consumption. The measure is based on the farm-gate value of unprocessed food.
	The formula used is:
	
		
			  [Self-Sufficiency]= 
			 [Adjusted UK food production] 
			 [UK food production] + [Food imports]—[Food exports] 
		
	
	A related measure is the proportion of UK Consumption Produced in the UK, which is calculated as food produced and consumed in the UK as a proportion of UK food consumption. As with the measure of self-sufficiency this is based on the farm-gate value of unprocessed food.
	The formula used is:
	
		
			  [Proportion of UK Consumption Produced in the UK]= 
			 [UK food production]—[Food exports] 
			 [UK food production] + [Food imports]—[Food exports] 
		
	
	Both the calculations for Self-Sufficiency and the Proportion of UK Consumption Produced in the UK use the same data sources. Food production data is sourced from DEFRA's UK agricultural accounts. Import and export data is provided by HMRC. Revaluation factors are applied to trade data to convert the value of processed goods back to the farm-gate value of their raw ingredients, and these are constructed from ONS input-output tables.
	The two calculations are similar but have two important differences. The main difference is that Self-Sufficiency includes food that the UK exports, which could have been consumed, whereas the Proportion of UK Consumption Produced in the UK looks purely at the breakdown of food that the UK does actually consume. A further, much smaller difference is the adjustment made to UK food production in the Self Sufficiency calculation.
	
		
			  UK self sufficiency in food and proportion of UK consumption produced in the UK 
			  Percentage 
			   Self-sufficiency in all food  Self-sufficiency in indigenous food  Proportion of UK consumption produced in  the UK 
			 1988 71.1 82.6 66.3 
			 1989 74.8 86.9 66.8 
			 1990 73.6 85.0 66.2 
			 1991 75.3 86.7 66.5 
			 1992 73.9 85.1 64.2 
			 1993 73.5 85.4 63.3 
			 1994 73.5 86.1 62.7 
			 1995 73.8 86.7 61.8 
			 1996 70.0 83.2 59.9 
			 1997 68.2 81.6 57.5 
			 1998 67.3 81.5 55.7 
			 1999 67.6 81.6 56.6 
			 2000 66.8 80.3 56.3 
			 2001 62.7 75.1 55.6 
			 2002 62.5 75.5 53.8 
			 2003 63.6 76.7 53.3 
			 2004 62.5 75.1 53.2 
			 2005 60.1 73.1 50.6 
			 2006 59.0 72.0 48.9 
			 2007 59.4 72.4 49.7 
			 2008 (1)— (1)— (1)— 
			 (1) 2008 figures not available yet. 2008 Self-Sufficiency figures to be published online in Agriculture in the UK on 26 March 2009.

Departmental ICT

Owen Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to the answer of 17 December 2008,  Official Report, column 773W, on departmental ICT, which ICT projects are over budget and by how much in each case.

Paul Goggins: There is one ICT project which is over budget.
	The Causeway Programme's original estimated cost was £42.7 million but it is estimated to be £58 million by 2013 when the contract is closed.

Departmental Training

Greg Hands: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer of 26 November 2008,  Official Report, column 1793W, on training, what the cost was of his training in  (a) the presentation of foreign policy and  (b) his Department's IT systems.

Gillian Merron: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 2 March 2009,  Official Report, columns 1240-44W.

Iran: Diplomatic Service

William Hague: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer of 23 March 2009,  Official Report, column 29W, on Iran, in what ways the Iranian authorities have obstructed the activities of staff at the British Embassy in Tehran; what activities have been obstructed; and if he will make a statement.

David Miliband: The Iranian authorities have obstructed the activities of our embassy in Tehran in numerous ways, including: by placing restrictions on vehicle access to the embassy compounds for embassy staff and visitors, harassing embassy staff, guests, and contractors carrying out work on our compounds (including security work recommended by the Iranian authorities), and failing to provide airside access for the collection of diplomatic bags.
	Additionally the British Council was forced to suspend its operation in Iran earlier this year, because of unacceptable pressure put on its staff by the Iranian Government.
	We have raised these issues with the Iranian authorities on numerous occasions and reminded them of their obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

Iran: Nuclear Power

Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with reference to the Statement during the Prime Minister's address to the US Congress that Iran should cease its threats and suspend its nuclear programme, what steps the Government is taking to secure this objective.

Bill Rammell: The Government remain committed to the E3+3 dual-track strategy—of pressure and engagement—to address the Iran nuclear issue. On the engagement aide, the US has been clear about its desire for a relationship based on "mutual respect" as President Obama made clear in a message to the Iranian people on 19 March 2009. The E3+3's generous offer of June 2008 remains on the table, which offers Iran a wide range of political and economic benefits, together with all it would need to develop and operate a civilian nuclear programme. On the pressure side, the UN Security Council has agreed five resolutions on the issue, three of which put in place sanctions against Iran. The EU has gone beyond these to put in place further measures. We have been clear that if Iran chooses not to accept the US and E3+3 offers, further, tough measures will follow.

Members: Correspondence

Steve Webb: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Northavon of 15 December 2008 sent on behalf of Mr. R Jenkins of Tytherington, South Gloucestershire.

Gillian Merron: The hon. Member for Northavon's letter was replied to on 20 March 2009.

Members: Correspondence

Steve Webb: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Northavon of 19 December 2008 sent on behalf of M Taylor of Chipping Sodbury.

Gillian Merron: The hon. Member for Northavon's letter was replied to on 20 March 2009.

Middle East: Armed Conflict

David Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he  (a) has taken and  (b) plans to take steps at the United Nations with regard to the ambush and murder of two police officers in Israel on 15 March; and if he will make a statement.

Bill Rammell: The UK condemns the murder of the two police officers. This incident has reinforced the urgent need for lasting peace in the Middle East. We remain committed to a two-state solution and to achieving a comprehensive peace and shall continue to work closely with the parties, with the Quartet of the UN, EU, US, and Russia, and with regional partners to make progress in 2009.

Middle East: Mass Media

James Gray: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effect of media in Arab countries on extremist Islamic movements in the UK.

Bill Rammell: While no formal study has been undertaken into the possible effects of reporting in the Arabic media on extremist Islamic groups in the UK, it is possible that some stories in the Arabic media may indeed serve to reinforce such groups beliefs. However, we have no evidence to suggest that patterns of media consumption of extremist groups are particularly distinctive, and we believe that they are just as likely to focus on stories in British or other media which reinforce their beliefs.
	Media in Arab countries is wide-ranging and many different viewpoints are expressed. The consumption of Arabic media therefore will not necessarily reinforce extremist views. We recognise that the Arabic media represents one of the best ways to communicate to the Arabic-speaking world, both in the Middle East and elsewhere, and for that reason we have Arabic language spokespersons based in London and the Gulf where they play an important role in articulating our policies to this crucial audience.
	Additionally, as part of our Prevent communications strategy, we constantly monitor the Arabic media and respond to articles that give an inaccurate picture of Government policy or life in the UK for British Muslims.

Regional Ministers: Travel

Andrew MacKinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Permanent Secretary of his Department has authorised expenditure on travel costs for the Parliamentary assistants to  (a) the Minister for Yorkshire and the Humber and  (b) the Minister for the East Midlands in accordance with the circumstances envisaged in the Cabinet Secretary's letter to Permanent Secretaries of 2 December 2008.

Gillian Merron: No.

Terrorism: Crime Prevention

David Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what procedures he has put in place to ensure  (a) financial audit and  (b) value for money in expenditure made as part of the CONTEST programme overseas.

Bill Rammell: All projects are managed by our officials in our embassies overseas. Our embassies re routinely audited by our internal audit team.
	All proposals for project funding undergo a rigorous assessment process to ensure that each project provides good value for money. Projects are also evaluated on completion, during which further consideration is given to whether the project offered good value for money. The impact of projects is carefully monitored through a process agreed with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit and the National Audit Office.

Departmental Manpower

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the answer of 9 March 2009,  Official Report, column 17W, on departmental personnel, if he will place in the Library a copy of  (a) the terms of reference for his Department's recruitment of an interim human resources manager via Penna Interim,  (b) the contract between his Department and Penna Interim,  (c) the contract of employment between the appointee and Penna Interim and  (d) the list of the appointee's primary responsibilities and the duties for the human resources manager; and if he will make a statement.

Ivan Lewis: (a) A copy of the terms of reference for the recruitment of the Interim HR Director, will be placed in the Library.
	 (b) The contract between DFID and Penna Interim is regarded as commercial in confidence. As such it is not appropriate to place a copy in the Library.
	 (c) The contract that existed between the appointee and Penna Interim is a matter for the two parties involved.
	 (d) The duties of the DFID HR Director will also be placed in the Library.

Departmental Official Engagements

Robert Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what his official engagements on 23 February 2009 were; and by what  (a) route and  (b) method he travelled between each engagement.

Michael Foster: On 23 February 2009 the Secretary of State for International Development attended the Cabinet Away-Day in Southampton in the morning and did a regional visit on behalf of the Department for International Development (DFID) in the afternoon. He took the train from London to Southampton and returned to London by train from Reading. He travelled between engagements by Government car.

Departmental Training

Greg Hands: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the answer of 2 February 2009,  Official Report, column 861W, on departmental training, which Ministers attended the public communications course; and how much the course cost to provide.

Michael Foster: Identifying Ministers who undertake training may discourage participation in future training sessions, acting as a disincentive for Ministers to undertake formal professional development. The total cost of the public communications course was £4,050.

Overseas Aid: Malaria

Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development from which budget the allocation of £2 million for the prevention of the spread of malaria announced on 12 March 2009 will be drawn; whether the funding is additional to that allocated for the provision of 20 million bed nets; to which programmes that funding will be allocated; and how that funding will be distributed.

Ivan Lewis: The funding to meet this commitment will come from the budget available for development programmes in Africa at the Department for International Development (DFID). The funding is additional to that allocated for the additional 20 million bed nets.
	This additional funding will be spent in Kenya and Tanzania and be used to support malaria prevention activities in those two countries. Officials are currently working on the detail of what the resources will support and how the funding will be distributed.

Pupils: Truancy

Joan Ryan: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many parents were  (a) fined and  (b) imprisoned in (i) England, (ii) Enfield local authority area and (iii) Enfield North constituency for their children's non-attendance at school in each of the last five years.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The Ministry of Justice collects data for England and Wales on prosecutions brought against parents under the Education Act 1996 for the offence under s444(1) of failing to secure their child's regular attendance at school; and for prosecutions under s444(1A), the aggravated offence of knowing that their child is failing to attend school regularly. It is possible, because of the way courts record data that some data is collected under the more general heading of various offences under the Education Act 1996.
	The information on the number of parents sentenced and given fines or immediate custodial sentences is detailed in the following table. However, the Ministry of Justice does not collect information on prosecutions on local authority or constituency basis so it is not possible to provide a breakdown for Enfield local authority or Enfield North.
	
		
			  Adults sentenced for child truanting offences( 1) , 2003-07 
			Fined  Immediate custody 
			 2003 Parent failing to secure their child's regular attendance at school 1,802 4 
			  Parent knowing that their child is failing to attend school regularly without reasonable justification to cause him or her to attend school 151 3 
			 
			 2004 Parent failing to secure their child's regular attendance at school 1,605 8 
			  Parent knowing that their child is failing to attend school regularly without reasonable justification to cause him or her to attend school 476 14 
			 
			 2005 Parent failing to secure their child's regular attendance at school 1,743 5 
			  Parent knowing that their child is failing to attend school regularly without reasonable justification to cause him or her to attend school 466 15 
			 
			 2006 Parent failing to secure their child's regular attendance at school 2,324 2 
			  Parent knowing that their child is failing to attend school regularly without reasonable justification to cause him or her to attend 628 20 
			 
			 2007 Parent failing to secure their child's regular attendance at school 3,112 6 
			  Parent knowing that their child is failing to attend school regularly without reasonable justification to cause him or her to attend school 676 11 
			 (1) These data are extracted on the principal offence basis These figures have been drawn from administrative data systems. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the returns the detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system.  Source: QMS Analytical Services, Ministry of Justice 
		
	
	The Department also collects and publishes data on penalty notices (fines) issued by local authorities in England to parents for not ensuring their child's regular attendance at school.
	The figures for the last four school academic years since our data collection began are detailed in the following table. Data are only collected on a local authority basis and not for constituencies.
	
		
			  School academic year—penalty notices for non attendance 
			   England  Enfield 
			 1 September 2004 to 31 July 2005 3,483 4 
			 1 August 2005 to 1 September 2006 12,150 24 
			 2 September 2006 to 31 August 2007 14,625 37 
			 1 September 2007 to 31 August 2008 18,291 149 
			  Source: Department for Children, Schools and Families data March 2009

Armed Forces: Housing

Liam Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many and what percentage of (a) service family and (b) single living accommodation units in (i) England, (ii) Scotland, (iii) Wales and (iv) Northern Ireland is in each condition grade.

Kevan Jones: An asset survey of Service Family Accommodation (SFA) in England and Wales has recently been undertaken to help plan and prioritise the maintenance and improvement of SFA properties more effectively and to target resources at areas of greatest need. Of the 44,000 SFA properties in England and Wales, over 40,500 have so far been surveyed. The following Standard for Condition (SfC) of these properties are provided in the table below.
	
		
			  SFC  Number  Percentage 
			 S1FC 12,983 32 
			 S2FC 23,127 57 
			 S3FC 4,057 10 
			 S4FC 406 1 
		
	
	The remaining properties will be surveyed between now and April 2010 and consideration is being given to undertaking similar surveys of SFA in Scotland and Northern Ireland (NI).
	Current data for Scotland is provided in the following table.
	
		
			  SFC  Number  Percentage 
			 S1FC 3,120 97 
			 S2FC 102 3 
			 S3FC 5 1 
		
	
	At present, no data is available for NI, however the accommodation is considered to be generally in good condition.
	All Single Living Accommodation (SLA) is separately assessed for its physical condition and scale. As at June 2008, SLA was at the following grade:
	
		
			   Grade 1  Grade 2  Grade 3  Grade 4  
			  Country  N o.  %  N o.  %  N o.  %  N o.  %  Total 
			 England 30,705 25 15,702 13 18,862 15 56,799 47 122,068 
			 Northern Ireland 1,002 24 960 23 1,402 34 776 19 4,140 
			 Scotland 2,555 33 1,559 20 1,677 21 2,041 26 7,832 
			 Wales 671 21 1,277 39 160 5 1,129  3,237 
			 UK Total 34,933 26 19,498 14 22,101 16 60,745 44 137,277

AWE Aldermaston

Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Portsmouth South of 18 December 2008,  Official Report, column 964W, on AWE Aldermaston, if he will place in the Library a copy of any Preliminary Safety Report prepared by the Directorate of Major Projects when it has been completed at AWE Aldermaston for the proposed Enriched Uranium Facility and Hydrodynamics Facility at AWE Aldermaston which has been provided to the Health and Safety Executive.

Quentin Davies: Neither of these documents currently exist. They will be assessed for placement in the Library of the House if and when they are produced.

Defence: Equipment

Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 16 March 2009,  Official Report, column 831W, on Iraq: peacekeeping operations, what mechanism is used to assess a proposal to gift equipment.

John Hutton: Surplus assets are considered for sale before being considered for gifting. Any proposals for the gifting of equipment in Iraq are scrutinized by the Ministry of Defence's Operational Planning Group (Redistribution). This group was established in October 2008 to address the drawdown of UK forces in Iraq. Gifting of items with a value of less that £250k can be authorised by the Ministry of Defence; any items with a value greater than £250,000 can only be authorised by HM Treasury and Parliament.

Departmental Data Protection

Patrick Mercer: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence with reference to Article 1.16 of the Final Report on Data Handling Procedures in Government of June 2008, whether any personal data from his Department was illegally traded in 2008.

Bob Ainsworth: We are not aware of any incidents of this type.

Iraq: Peacekeeping Operations

Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British troops have served in Iraq since 2003.

John Hutton: Due to ongoing validation of data from Legacy Service Personnel Administrative systems and the Joint Personnel Administration (JPA) "Move and Track" system, data on the total number of deployed personnel to Iraq since 2003 is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
	As at 1 February 2009 there were 91,300 serving members of the UK armed forces who have been deployed to Iraq and the Gulf region since 2003. This figure does not include personnel who have served in Iraq and the Gulf region but who had left the armed forces by 31 January 2009.

Iraq: Peacekeeping Operations

Adam Price: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 9 March 2009,  Official Report, column 176W, on Iraq: peacekeeping operations, for what reasons he does not publish information on individuals captured outside multi-national Division South-East.

John Hutton: Given the sensitive nature of these operations it is not the practice of the Department to comment upon them.

Burns: North West

Derek Twigg: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many serious burn cases have been dealt with by each burn unit in the North West in each year since 2001.

Ann Keen: Not all of the information requested is available centrally. Relevant information held on the National Burn Injury Database is included in the following table:
	
		
			  Northern burn care network 
			  S evere/complex patient number 
			  Hospital  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  Total 
			  Paediatrics
			 Wakefield 3 2 7 4 1 7 24 
			 Manchester 6 2 3 4 5 4 24 
			 Liverpool 3 6 2 2 3 4 20 
			 Preston 3 0 2 2 4 2 13 
			 
			  Adults
			 Wakefield 9 10 8 5 6 9 47 
			 Manchester 8 8 13 7 12 15 63 
			 Liverpool 4 5 9 11 8 10 47 
			 Preston 4 2 2 8 1 3 20 
			  Source:  National burn injury database.

Departmental Publications

Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the  (a) production and printing and  (b) other costs to his Department of producing its most recent (i) departmental annual report and (ii) autumn performance report.

Ben Bradshaw: Costs for production, printing and other items of the most recent published Departmental Report 2008 (Cm 7393) and Autumn Performance Report 2008 (Cm 7519) are shown in the following table.
	
		
			   Cost  (£) 
			  Departmental Report 2008  
			 Printing 6,345 
			 Typesetting 8,315 
			 Other 6,064 
			   
			  Autumn Performance Report 2008  
			 Printing 5,335 
			 Typesetting 4,584 
			 Other 688

NHS: Bank Services

Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health which hospitals have lost money in the Icelandic banking collapse.

Ben Bradshaw: There were no strategic health authorities, primary care trusts or national health service trusts with any Exchequer funds (i.e. taxpayers money) residing in Icelandic banks.
	Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Charities had £1.65 million of charitable funds deposited in the Icelandic bank, Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander.
	The Christie Hospital NHS Foundation Trust released a statement on 10 October confirming that they had a deposit of £7.5 million with the Icelandic bank, Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander. £1 million of this was NHS money and £6.5 million was charitable funds.
	Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust also have a deposit of £1 million with the Icelandic bank, Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander, all of this deposit was NHS money.

Regional Ministers: Travel

Andrew MacKinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Permanent Secretary of his Department has authorised expenditure on travel costs for the Parliamentary assistant to the Minister for the South West in accordance with the circumstances envisaged in the Cabinet Secretary's letter to Permanent Secretaries of 2 December 2008.

Ben Bradshaw: The Permanent Secretary has on one occasion (for travel on 26 January 2009) authorised expenditure on travel costs for the parliamentary assistant to the Minister for the South West in accordance with the circumstances envisaged in the Cabinet Secretary's letter to Permanent Secretaries of 2 December 2008. However, the journey did not take place and no cost was therefore incurred.

Jobcentre Plus: Internet

Justine Greening: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many  (a) job searches Jobcentre Plus handled through its website and  (b) employers posted vacancies through Jobcentre Plus' Employer Direct Online service in each (i) region and (ii) Jobcentre Plus district in each (A) year from 2002 to 2009 and (B) of the last 24 months.

Tony McNulty: People across the country can search for jobs anywhere in the country via the Jobcentre Plus website. It is therefore not possible to determine which region or Jobcentre Plus District a user lives in.
	Information on the number of employers who posted vacancies on Employer Direct online is not collated centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Mortgages: Government Assistance

Grant Shapps: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 
	(1)  what level of assistance his Department provided for vulnerable households under the Support for Mortgage Interest scheme in the period immediately prior to 5 January 2009; and what level has been provided under the scheme since that date;
	(2)  what definition of vulnerable his Department uses in respect of its Support for Mortgage Interest scheme.

Kitty Ussher: Help is provided towards the interest on mortgages (known as support for mortgage interest (SMI)) as part of income support (IS), income-based jobseeker's allowance (JSA(IB)), income-related employment and support allowance (ESA(IR)) and state pension credit (SPC).
	Prior to 5 January, home owners claiming IS, JSA(IB), ESA(IR) generally had to serve a waiting period of 39 weeks before assistance was provided towards their eligible housing costs. Customers in receipt of state pension credit (SPC) receive help immediately with their housing costs as they do not serve a waiting period.
	Some home owners, who were considered to be vulnerable, received help towards their housing costs earlier than 39 weeks. Help for these groups was provided at 50 per cent. of eligible mortgage interest after eight weeks then full eligible assistance after 26 weeks. The groups were: carers; widow(er)s or people who have been abandoned by their partner and who had responsibility for the care of a child; prisoners detained in custody pending trial or sentence upon conviction; and those who had been refused payments under an insurance policy due to either a pre-existing medical condition or because they were infected by HIV or AIDs.
	From 5 January 2009, all working age customers (those claiming IS, JSA(IB) or ESA(IR)) making new claims will receive help with 100 per cent. of their eligible housing costs after a waiting period of 13 weeks.
	This compares favourably with the previous position because although some customers received 50 per cent. of eligible housing costs after eight weeks under the old rules, they had to wait 26 weeks before receiving 100 per cent. We believe that this more generous help, taken together with the increased capital limit for working age customers from £100,000 to £200,000, will reduce the risk of repossessions.

Mortgages: Government Assistance

Grant Shapps: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the  (a) maximum amount which could be claimed and  (b) time limit for claims under the Support for Mortgage Interest scheme was in the period up to 5 January 2009; and what the limit has been since that date.

Kitty Ussher: Where a home owner is getting income support (IS), income-based jobseeker's Allowance (JSA(IB)), income-related employment and support allowance (ESA(IR)) or state pension credit (SPC) and they have a mortgage, those benefits may include an additional element called support for mortgage interest (SMI). SMI is meant to assist the home owner with the interest on their mortgage, and an additional amount is included in the applicable amount. It is not a separate benefit, rather an integral part of IS, JSA(IB), ESA(IR) and SPC.
	The amount of SMI is calculated by applying a standard interest rate (SIR) to the capital outstanding on the mortgage, subject to upper limits on the amount of that capital. From 5 January, for new claims to IS, JSA and ESA, the capital limit was increased from £100,000 to £200,000. The existing £100,000 capital limit has been retained in SPC, but we will allow those getting help via SMI on loans over £100,000 to keep the higher capital limit when they move on to SPC within 12 weeks of a claim for a working age benefit ending, for as long as they remain entitled to SPC.
	Previously, the SIR had been set at the Bank of England base rate plus an additional 1.58 per cent. However, the Government are concerned that recent cuts in the base rate will disadvantage significant number of customers on benefit if they are reflected in SMI calculations. For this reason, the Chancellor announced in the pre-Budget report on 24 November 2008 that the SIR will remain at 6.08 per cent. for six months.
	In addition, the waiting period before help through SMI starts was shortened from 39 or 26 weeks to 13 weeks for new, some repeat and some existing working age claims. There is no waiting period for home owners claiming SPC.
	A two-year time limit on SMI for new, some repeat and some existing JSA claims only was introduced from 5 January 2009. Prior to this, help through SMI was available so long as there was a liability for the mortgage and so long as there was entitlement to JSA.
	The SMI changes are a temporary short-term measure intended to help people over the potentially difficult labour market problems they face and help limit repossessions, rather than changing existing qualifying conditions, and will be reviewed once housing market conditions are more favourable.

Borrowing: Advisory Services

Greg Hands: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform how much was spent on establishing the stop loan sharks  (a) telephone line,  (b) website and  (c) text service; and what estimate he has made of the number of people who have used each service since establishment.

Gareth Thomas: The amount spent on establishing the Stop Loan Sharks is as follows:
	 (a) Telephone line—The telephone number cost £200 to install and £10 per month line rental to keep the number live. The easily recognisable number itself was free. The geographical set up was free.
	 (b) Website—Development of the website design cost approximately £6,000. The stop loan sharks email is free. There were no direct costs to BERR from Directgov to produce the website.
	 (c) Text service—The text service is £260 per year. The cost is approximately £100 per year for texts the teams send using this service. We get about five per week on average of which one or two are excellent leads.
	In the first 24 hours of the launch on 3 March 2009, 125 calls from around the country and two texts were received. It is estimated that hundreds of people have called the hotline since its launch in the main for debt advice. The Stop Loan Sharks Directgov site has received 1,510 visitors since the launch.

Street Trading: Public Consultation

Brian Iddon: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform when he plans to start his consultation on the findings of the Street Trading and Pedlary in Great Britain report; and if he will make a statement.

Gareth Thomas: The Government will publish a consultation document this summer. Taking into account the findings of the report, we will be seeking views on possible changes to street trading and pedlar legislation, and on draft guidance on the current regime.

Trade Unions: Legal Opinion

Francis Maude: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood of 27 January 2009,  Official Report, column 580W, on trade unions: legal opinion, if he will place in the Library a copy of the preliminary analysis produced by the Office of Fair Trading on whether trade union members are consumers for the purposes of consumer protection rules.

Gareth Thomas: The Office of Fair Trading carried out a preliminary analysis in response to a complaint about the way in which certain trade unions collect contributions from members to political funds. The OFT decided not to pursue this issue for a number of reasons including a lack of evidence of widespread harm; the limited extent of the beneficial impact on consumers of any intervention; certain legal uncertainties which were finely balanced as to whether trade unions are 'suppliers' or 'sellers' and that members are 'consumers'; and the need to prioritize its activities to best meet its prioritization principles. OFT lawyers contributed to consideration of the matter, but it is not the OFT's practice to release internal legal advice, in line with rules relating to legal professional privilege.

UK Trade and Investment

Gregory Barker: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform who the members are of the UK Trade and Investment UK Low-Carbon Sector Advisory Group.

Gareth Thomas: There is not a Low Carbon Sector Advisory Group. As low carbon has bearing on all sectors of the economy, it has relevance to all UKTI Sector Advisory Groups. They were consulted during the development of the strategy, as part of a wider engagement with business and organisations. Stakeholders will continue to shape and inform the strategy through the Sector Advisory Groups and in other ways, such as becoming partners to the strategy.

UK Trade and Investment

Gregory Barker: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform who the members are of the UK Trade and Investment UK Low-Carbon International Marketing Strategy Board.

Gareth Thomas: A large number of businesses and organisations have contributed to the development of the strategy. Partnerships have been formed with a number of these stakeholders to help shape its further development. Governance arrangements for the strategy are still being considered and a Marketing Strategy Board is one of a possible range of options.

UK Trade and Investment

Gregory Barker: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what the proposed timetable is for the publication of the UK Trade and Investment UK Low-Carbon International Marketing Strategy.

Gareth Thomas: On 25 March UKTI will set out the strategy's overarching proposition and next steps, including developing the strategy across sectors during 2009-10, at a partnership event. The event material will be available on the UKTI website (www.uktradeinvest.gov.uk) after the event.

Equal Pay: Private Sector

Julie Morgan: To ask the Minister for Women and Equality what plans she has to reduce the gender pay gap in the private sector.

Maria Eagle: A key to reducing the gender pay gap is pay transparency. The forthcoming Equality Bill will ensure that employers will not be able to rely on keeping their pay structure secret. We will ban secrecy clauses in employment contracts, so that women can identify unequal pay and seek redress.
	The Bill will also enable employers, where women are under-represented in the workforce, to recruit a woman if she is an equally suitable candidate to a man, so that they can increase diversity in their workforce.
	The Government are also committed to using the spending power of the public sector to deliver greater transparency on important equality issues like gender pay. £175 billion is spent by the public sector on private sector contracts every year. We are therefore looking at ways to use the purchasing power of public bodies to help achieve equality outcomes in the private sector. The Office of Government Commerce has published practical guidance for public procurers on what they can do to promote equality through the way they buy goods and services.
	Through the Bill we will provide for an employment tribunal to be able to make a recommendation, where an employer has been found to have unlawfully discriminated, on how that employer can improve its practices in a way that applies not just to the successful complainant but to everyone in that workplace. This will help prevent similar types of discrimination happening again, so reducing the likelihood of future claims.
	In the light of the Civil Justice Council's report and the specific research commissioned by GEO, we are considering whether there is a case for introducing representative actions for discrimination and equal pay cases. This will feed into wider work being taken forward by the Ministry of Justice looking at the case for representative actions across all jurisdictions of law. We will consult on any proposals for reform.
	The Equality and Human Rights Commission is also conducting a formal inquiry into the financial services sector, as it has evidence suggesting that a high proportion of women working in some areas of financial services are paid less than their male counterparts, and suffer harassment at work. The financial services industry has the largest pay gap between men and women in the private sector at over 40 per cent. with far fewer women in senior roles than in other sectors.

Equality and Human Rights Commission: Official Hospitality

Paul Goodman: To ask the Minister for Women and Equality pursuant to the answer of 6 March 2009,  Official Report, column 1843W, on hospitality: Equality and Human Rights Commission, if she will publish a breakdown by event of the £6,151 spent on hospitality in 2008-09.

Maria Eagle: Due to the way the Commission accounts are structured, it is not possible to break down the amount by individual events. The main components of the £6,151 figure are:
	Hospitality(1): £4,961.69
	Staff expenses(2): £1,189.56
	(1) Refreshments for visitors at EHRC-hosted meetings.
	(2) Refreshments for visitors at EHRC-hosted meetings paid for directly by staff.

Equality Bill 2008-09

Theresa May: To ask the Minister for Women and Equality which organisations she has met to discuss the Equality Bill since 3 December 2008.

Maria Eagle: I, the Minister for Women and Equality, Vera Baird QC MP, Baroness Royall and officials have met with representatives from the Third Sector, Business, Unions and most stakeholder groups with an interest in the Equality Bill.

Banks: Finance

Gordon Banks: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer of 9 March 2009,  Official Report, column 100W, on banks, what progress has been made in liaison between his Department, UK Financial Investments (UKFI) and the boards of banks of which UKFI is a major shareholder on pension arrangements for directors of these banks.

Ian Pearson: holding answer  23 March  2009
	The Treasury and UK Financial Investments Ltd. (UKFI) continue to liaise with the board of the banks of which they are major shareholders on remuneration policy. This includes work to ensure that remuneration policies are in line with the Government's principles on remuneration, including no rewards for failure. Directors' remuneration arrangements—including pensions arrangements as appropriate—are disclosed in the banks' annual report and accounts.

Business: Standards

Justine Greening: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will direct the Financial Services Authority to publish a list of firms that did not meet its December 2008 deadline for the Treating Customers Fairly scheme.

Ian Pearson: The matter raised in this question is the responsibility of the Financial Services Authority, whose day-to-day operations are independent from Government control and influence. I have asked the FSA to write to the hon. Member.

Departmental Art Works

Shailesh Vara: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which works of art from the Government Art Collection each Minister in his Department has selected for display in a private office.

Angela Eagle: The information requested has been deposited in the Library of the House.

Departmental Buildings

Grant Shapps: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was spent by  (a) his Department and  (b) its agencies on (i) furniture and (ii) renovation and decoration for departmental buildings in each of the last five years.

Angela Eagle: Details of spending on furniture and fittings for the Treasury Group is shown in the Tangible Fixed Assets note to the annual Resource Accounts. Copies of the resource accounts are available from
	http://www/.hm-treasury.gov.uk/resource_accounting_and_budgeting_about_us.htm.
	For information on the renovation and decoration of departmental buildings, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 20 January 2009,  Official Report, column 1292W, to the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Scott).

Departmental Manpower

Greg Clark: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many members of the Prime Minister's  (a) Strategy Unit and  (b) Delivery Unit have a desk allocated in each other Government department.

Yvette Cooper: PMDU have one desk allocated for the Head of Unit in Number 10 and none anywhere else.
	PMSU (which is part of the Cabinet Office) has three people using desks at DCSF (full time) and two people using desks part time at Home Office (one person four days per week and another 2.5 days per week). PMSU has no desks allocated to them anywhere else.

Members: Correspondence

Steve Webb: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Northavon of 3 December 2008 on behalf of Mr. P Deegan of Bradley Stoke, on annuities.

Ian Pearson: I have replied to the hon. Member.

Members: Correspondence

Steve Webb: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Northavon of 8 December 2008 on behalf of Mrs. J Gray of Wick, on winter fuel allowance for disabled children.

Stephen Timms: There was no trace of receipt of the letter of 8 December. A copy has been requested and received and a reply should be sent shortly.

Members: Correspondence

Andrew Selous: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to reply to the letter of 1 December 2008 from the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire regarding his constituent, Mr. Brumwell.

Ian Pearson: A reply has been sent to the hon. Member.

Private Finance Initiative

Philip Hammond: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the written ministerial statement of 3 March 2009,  Official Report, columns 47-48WS, on Government infrastructure investment, what rate of return on capital he is prepared to permit in private finance initiative projects supported by 100 per cent. senior debt lending by his Department.

Yvette Cooper: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 26 March 2009,  Official Report, column 632W.

Departmental Energy

Greg Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps have been taken by  (a) his Department and  (b) its agency to improve the thermal efficiency of their buildings in the last 12 months.

Barbara Follett: No steps have been taken by the Department in the last 12 months. However during the refurbishment of its Cockspur Street building in 2007-08 the Department took the opportunity to upgrade its lighting facilities, to install new boilers, chillers, air handling and fan coil units.
	When carrying out building refurbishments over the past 12 months, The Royal Parks has taken the opportunity to install or upgrade secondary glazing, install modern and more efficient heating systems and boilers, introduce thermostatic controls to radiators, and, where possible, lay floor insulation.
	There has been one new build in the Royal Parks in the past twelve months, which was designed in accordance with the Building Regulations Part L.

Historic Buildings

Jeremy Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many publicly-owned buildings are included on English Heritage's Heritage at Risk register.

Barbara Follett: holding answer 27 March 2009
	200 publicly-owned grade I and grade II* listed buildings and structural scheduled monuments nationally, and a further 95 grade II listed buildings in London, were included on their 2008 Heritage at Risk Register.

Museums

Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the number of people who have visited a publicly-funded museum in the last 12 months.

Barbara Follett: The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) collects visitor figures from the museums and galleries that it sponsors. While the figures for the full year 2008-09 are not yet available, DCMS estimates that 40 million visits will have been made to DCMS-funded museums and galleries by the end of the 2008-09 financial year.

Carbon Trust

Greg Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what his role in the appointments of members of the board of  (a) the Carbon Trust and  (b) the Energy Savings Trust is.

Joan Ruddock: The Energy Saving Trust is a private company. Members of the board are appointed in line with its Articles of Association. The Government have no role in appointing members to the board.
	The Carbon Trust is a private company. Under its Articles of Association, the Secretaries of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, both appoint one member to the Carbon Trust Board. Following the creation of DECC in October 2008, DECC assumed responsibility for sponsorship of the Carbon Trust from DEFRA. We are in discussions with Carbon Trust to consider amendments to the current arrangements for board membership which are necessitated by the creation of DECC.
	Other members of the board are appointed in line with Carbon Trust's Articles of Association, which are publicly available at the Companies Registry.

Climate Change Summit

Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how many staff of his Department attended the International Climate Change Conference in New York in 2009.

Joan Ruddock: holding  answer 24 March 2009
	No staff from the Department of Energy and Climate Change attended the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change in New York, organised by the Heartland Institute. This event was predominantly aimed at environmental sceptics.
	It ran almost concurrently with the International Scientific Conference on Climate Change, supported by the Government of Denmark, in Copenhagen. This mainstream event attracted some 2,000 scientists and experts, including many leaders in their fields, and therefore took priority for our officials.

Community Energy Saving Programme

Greg Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change pursuant to the answer of 26 February 2009,  Official Report, column 918W, on Community Energy Saving Programme, when he expects to publish the final order for the Community Energy Saving Programme; and when he expects this order to come into force.

Joan Ruddock: A draft statutory instrument is now available on the DECC website. Consultation on the CESP proposals closes on 8 May, and the Government will then need to consider the responses received carefully. We hope to lay the final statutory instrument before Parliament this summer, with a view to the scheme coming into force later in 2009.

Departmental Translation Services

Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how many language translators are employed in  (a) his Department and  (b) its non-Ministerial departments; and what the cost of translating services provided by such people was in the latest period for which information is available.

Mike O'Brien: Responsibility for employing language translators is delegated to the Department's different business units. As such there is no central record of language translators and the Department would incur a disproportionate cost if it were to compile such a record.

Electricite de France

Dai Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what information he has received on the operations of European Union anti-trust inspectors on the offices of Electricité de France (EDF) in Brussels on 11 March, in respect of EDF's proposals to build nuclear power plants in the UK.

Gareth Thomas: I have been asked to reply.
	Ministers do not receive information on unannounced inspections by the European Commission, Directorate-General Competition, or, for that matter, by national competition authorities. The broad details of inspections are confirmed in official statements by the independent competition authority concerned. In this particular case we know from the European Commission's statement of 11 March 2009 that:
	'on 10 March Commission officials carried out unannounced inspections at the premises of the electricity company EDF in France in respect of prices on the French wholesale electricity market'.

Energy: Advisory Services

Greg Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change pursuant to the answer of 9 March 2009,  Official Report, column 56W, on energy: advisory services, what the address of each energy saving trust advice centre is.

Joan Ruddock: The address details of the 16 Energy Saving Trust regional advice centres that are funded by my Department are listed as follows:
	
		
			   Address 
			 London Energy Saving Trust advice centre CEN, 8th Floor, Ambassador House, Brigstock Road, Thornton Heath, Surrey CR7 7JG 
			 East Midlands Energy Saving Trust advice centre Hestia, 1st Floor Granby House, 44 Friar Lane, Nottingham NG1 6DQ 
			 Wales Energy Saving Trust advice centre Energy Saving Trust, 1 Caspian Point, Caspian Way, Cardiff Bay, South Wales CF10 4DQ 
			 Northern Ireland Energy Saving Trust advice centre Bryson House,1-11 May Street, Belfast BT1 4NA 
			 North East Energy Saving Trust advice centre TADEA, 18B Manor Way, Belasis Hall Technology Park, Billingham  TS23 4HN 
			 Merseyside and Cheshire Energy Saving Trust advice centre Energy Projects Plus, The Sandon Building, Falkland Road, Wallasey, Wirral CH44 8ER 
			 Greater Manchester Energy Saving Trust advice centre Manchester City Council, 4th Floor, Basil House, 105-107 Portland Street, Manchester M1 6DF 
			 Cumbria and Lancashire Energy Saving Trust advice centre TADEA, 12C Alanbrooke Road, Rosehill, Carlisle CA1 2UT 
			 North Yorks and Humber Energy Saving Trust advice centre Ryedale Energy Conservation Group Ltd., 20 George Hudson Street, York YO1 6WR 
			 South and West Yorks Energy Saving Trust advice centre Kirklees Energy Services, 12 Byram Buildings, Stration Street, Huddersfield, West Yorkshire HD1 1LS 
			 Thames Valley and Solent advice centre USEA, National Energy Centre, Davey Avenue, Knowhill, Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire MK5 8NG 
			 Kent, Surrey and Sussex Energy Saving Trust advice centre CEN, 3rd Floor, International House, Dover Place, Ashford, Kent TN23 1HU 
			 West Midlands Energy Saving Trust advice centre Hestia, European Business Park, Taylors Lane, Oldbury, West Midlands  B69 2BN 
			 East of England Energy Saving Trust advice centre 1 Climate Energy, Echotech Centre, Turbine Way, Swaffham, Norfolk PE37 7HT 
			 East of England Energy Saving Trust advice centre 2 Climate Energy, Countrywide House, Freebournes Road, Witham, Essex  CM8 3UN 
			 South and West Yorks Energy Saving Trust advice centre (Devon, Swindon, Cornwall and Bristol, and Somerset hubs) Energy Advice South West Ltd., c/o South Crofty House, Tolvaddon Energy Park, Cambourne, Cornwall TR14 0HX

Environmental Transformation Fund

Greg Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change pursuant to the answer of 12 February 2009,  Official Report, column 2161W, on Environmental Transformation Fund, by what date he expects to sign the trust fund arrangement with the World Bank.

Joan Ruddock: This arrangement, known officially as the "Contribution Arrangement" between the World Bank (the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) and the United Kingdom acting through the Department for International Development and my Department was signed on 26 March.

Framework Convention on Climate Change Committee

Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how many of his Department's staff attended the recent press briefing in New York by Mr Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change on the climate change conference in Copenhagen.

Joan Ruddock: No staff from the Department of Energy and Climate Change attended the recent press briefing in New York by Yvo de Boer on the international climate change conference in Copenhagen.

Warm Front Scheme

Charles Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how many applications were made for grants under the Warm Front scheme in each year from 2000 to 2008.

Joan Ruddock: holding answer 24 March 2009
	Prior to 2005, the scheme was managed in separate areas by Eaga and Powergen TXU and consolidated figures are not available for this period. The number of applications made since the start of the current phase of the Warm Front Scheme in 2005 are as follows:
	
		
			  Scheme year  Total applications to Warm Front 
			 2005-06 195,876 
			 2006-07 336,666 
			 2007-08 388,326 
			 2008-09(1) 301,529 
			 Total 1,222,397 
			 (1) To 28 February

Warm Front Scheme

Greg Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change pursuant to the answer of 9 March 2009,  Official Report, column 59W, on the Warm Front scheme, what estimate he has made of the number of eligible households which are classified as being in fuel poverty.

Joan Ruddock: According to the English House Condition survey of 2006, at least 25 per cent. of all vulnerable households eligible for the scheme were fuel poor and approximately 3.3 million households were eligible for assistance. Given these figures, the Department estimates that approximately 825,00 households eligible for the scheme at this time were fuel poor. It is likely, however, that many of the residual number may have otherwise fallen into, or have been near falling into fuel poverty, as a result of gas and 'electricity price increases in 2007 and 2008.

Warm Front Scheme: East Sussex

Nigel Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how many of the households supplied with light bulbs under the Warm Front Scheme in  (a) Eastbourne and  (b) East Sussex received bulbs which were classified as energy-efficient in each of the last nine years.

Joan Ruddock: All households who have applied and been found eligible for Warm Front in Eastbourne and East Sussex received light bulbs which were energy efficient. A break down is provided as follows:
	
		
			   Eastbourne  East Sussex 
			 2000-01 151 1,371 
			 2001-02 336 3,688 
			 2002-03 567 3,801 
			 2003-04 438 2,834 
			 2004-05 530 3,595 
			 2005-06 417 2,241 
			 2006-07 542 3,387 
			 2007-08 300 3,230 
			 2008-09 313 2,686 
			 Total 3,594 26,833

Asylum

Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the immigration status of the asylum seeker with the Home Office reference M1225028 was on 2 April 2007.

Phil Woolas: The UK Border Agency replied to the hon. Member on 11 December 2008.

Asylum

Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the immigration status of the asylum seeker with Home Office reference Y1062497 was on 2 April 2007.

Phil Woolas: The UK Border Agency replied to the hon. Member on 11 December 2008.

Asylum

Greg Hands: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many outstanding cases the UK Border Agency's Case Resolution Directorate had at the latest date for which figures are available.

Phil Woolas: The previous Home Secretary informed Parliament in July 2006 of
	"the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's case load of around 400,000 to 450,000 electronic and paper records, which as honourable Members also know, are riddled with duplication and errors, and include cases of individuals who have since died or left the country, or are now EU citizens. We will tackle the case load in the IND with the aim of clearing it-not in 25 years, as has been suggested, but in five years or less."
	In her update to the Home Affairs Select Committee, Lin Homer, the UK Border Agency chief executive has stated that 130,000 cases have now been concluded up to the end of October 2008. The number of conclusions has increased to 155,500 as at 9 January 2009. The Case Resolution Directorate is on track to complete all cases by summer 2011.

Asylum: Deportation

Damian Green: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to which countries her Department cannot return unsuccessful asylum seekers on humanitarian grounds; and how many unsuccessful asylum seekers from each such country were present in the United Kingdom on 1 November 2008.

Phil Woolas: There are no countries to which there is a blanket approach of not returning failed asylum seekers on humanitarian grounds. The Government believe that the right approach is to consider the protection needs of individuals on an individual basis.
	Each asylum and human rights claim is considered on its individual merits in accordance with our international obligations and taking full account of conditions in the country concerned as they impact on the individual. Those found to be in need of international protection are provided with it. Failed asylum seekers of all nationalities who have been found by the Home Office and the appeals process not to be in need of international protection and have no legal basis of stay in the UK are expected to return to their country of origin and may have their removal enforced.

Asylum: Housing

Damian Green: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 16 March 2009,  Official Report, column 915W, on asylum: housing, how many properties are covered by the 28 contracts with providers to supply accommodation for asylum seekers.

Phil Woolas: Information on the number of properties covered by the UK Border Agency's 28 contracts with accommodation providers to supply accommodation for asylum seekers could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Asylum: Palestinians

Jennifer Willott: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many failed asylum seekers there are in the UK from  (a) the Palestinian Territories and  (b) the Gaza Strip who have not been granted leave to remain and for which the Government has no removal plans; and if she will make a statement.

Phil Woolas: Since the phasing out of embarkation controls in 1994 no Government have been able to produce accurate figures for the number of failed asylum seekers who have remained in the United Kingdom after they have reached the Appeal Rights Exhausted stage, have not been granted leave to remain and no longer have any further claim to remain here. This applies irrespective of an individual's nationality or place of origin.
	All asylum claims including those from individuals from the Palestinian territories (including the Gaza strip) are considered on their individual merits in accordance with our obligations under the 1951 refugee convention and the European convention on human rights. Those identified by the decision-making process and the independent appeals process not to be in need of international protection are expected to leave the UK voluntarily. Failed asylum seekers can and do voluntarily return to the Palestinian territories (including the Gaza strip). Those who do not leave voluntarily may have their return enforced.

Asylum: Palestinians

Jennifer Willott: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many failed asylum seekers there are in the UK from  (a) the Palestinian Territories and  (b) the Gaza Strip awaiting a decision on a new claim for asylum and for which the Government has no removal plans; and if she will make a statement.

Phil Woolas: Information on the number of failed asylum seekers who have made further submissions on their case which are still awaiting consideration can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. This applies irrespective of an individual's nationality or place of origin. Further submissions will only be classed as a fresh claim retrospectively following their full consideration where the submissions meet the criteria set out in paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules.
	All asylum claims including those from individuals from the Palestinian territories (including the Gaza strip) are considered on their individual merits in accordance with our obligations under the 1951 refugee convention and the European convention on human rights. Those identified by the decision-making process and the independent appeals process as not being in need of international protection are expected to leave the UK voluntarily. Failed asylum seekers can and do voluntarily return to the Palestinian territories (including the Gaza strip). Those who do not leave voluntarily may have their return enforced.
	However, the UK Border Agency will not enforce the return of a failed asylum seeker who has made further submissions in their case as long as those submissions, including any appeal if the submissions are accepted as a fresh claim, remain pending. Again, this applies irrespective of an individual's nationality or place or origin.

Cannabis

Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 24 February 2009,  Official Report, column 673W, on cannabis, where illegal drugs used for police training purposes are  (a) obtained and  (b) stored; and what guidance her Department has issued to police forces on such matters.

Jacqui Smith: holding answer 10 March 2009
	Cannabis is the only drug where smell and touch cannot be replicated. Other illegal drugs are represented by facsimiles that are purchased by police forces as a "dummy box".
	Cannabis is obtained from confiscations which are marked for destruction once the respective case is closed.
	The illegal drugs are stored in property stores, the majority of which are located at respective police force headquarters. Property stores are strong, locked rooms with separate drugs cabinets. These are under the control and supervision of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. Close supervision is exercised by a senior officer to ensure proper removal, use and replacement of the substances. Release can be obtained only by authorised drug trainers.

Crime Prevention

Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when she plans to publish the results of the most recently completed Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships survey.

Jacqui Smith: We do not publish an annual crime and disorder reduction partnerships (CDRPs) survey. Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, CDRPs had previously been required to report annually to the Secretary of State on the partnerships work and progress. This duty was repealed in 2007.

Detainees: Immigration

Christopher Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people of each nationality held in immigration removal centres have been detained for more than a year in each year since 2001.

Jacqui Smith: Information on all persons detained for more than one year is not held centrally and would be available only through the detailed examination of individual case files at disproportionate cost.
	The following table shows the numbers of persons detained within the UK border agency detention estate solely under immigration act powers for more than one year on a snapshot basis as at the last Saturday of each year (i.e. of those detained on that particular day, the numbers of whom had been detained for over a year), from 2001 to 2008, broken down by country of nationality.
	National statistics on persons detained solely under immigration act powers on a snapshot basis are published quarterly. This information is published in Tables 9-11 of the control of immigration: Quarterly statistical summary, United Kingdom bulletins which are available from the Library of the House and from the Home Office's Research, Development and Statistics website at:
	http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration-asylum-stats.html
	
		
			  Persons recorded as being in detention in the United Kingdom solely under immigration act powers for more than one year( 1) , by country of nationality as at the last Saturday of each year, 2001-2008( 2,3) 
			  Number of persons 
			  Country of nationality  29 Dec. 2001( 4)  28 Dec. 2002( 4)  27 Dec. 2003( 4)  25 Dec. 2004  31 Dec. 2005  30 Dec. 2006  29 Dec. 2007  27 Dec. 2008( 5) 
			 Albania — — — — — n/a n/a — 
			 Macedonia — — — — — n/a n/a — 
			 Moldova — — — — — n/a n/a — 
			 Russia — — * — — n/a n/a * 
			 Turkey * — * * — n/a n/a * 
			 Ukraine — * 5 * — n/a n/a — 
			 EU Accession States(6) * — — — — n/a n/a — 
			 Other Former USSR — — — — — n/a n/a — 
			 Other Europe — — — * * n/a n/a * 
			 Total Europe * * 5 5 * n/a n/a 5 
			  
			 Bolivia — — — — — n/a n/a — 
			 Brazil — — — — — n/a n/a — 
			 Canada — — — — — n/a n/a — 
			 Colombia * — — — — n/a n/a * 
			 Ecuador — — — — — n/a n/a — 
			 Jamaica — — * 10 5 n/a n/a 10 
			 Mexico — — — — — n/a n/a — 
			 USA — — — — — n/a n/a * 
			 Other Americas — * — — — n/a n/a — 
			 Total Americas * * * 10 5 n/a n/a 15 
			  
			 Algeria 10 5 5 5 5 n/a n/a 10 
			 Angola * — — — 5 n/a n/a 5 
			 Burundi — — — — * n/a n/a — 
			 Cameroon — — — * * n/a n/a — 
			 Congo — — — * — n/a n/a — 
			 Democratic Republic of Congo — * — * * n/a n/a 5 
			 Eritrea — — — * — n/a n/a 5 
			 Ethiopia — — — * * n/a n/a * 
			 Gambia — — — — * n/a n/a * 
			 Ghana * — * * * n/a n/a * 
			 Ivory Coast — — * * — n/a n/a * 
			 Kenya 5 * — — — n/a n/a * 
			 Liberia — — — — — n/a n/a * 
			 Libya * — * — — n/a n/a * 
			 Mauritius — — — — — n/a n/a — 
			 Nigeria * * * 5 * n/a n/a 10 
			 Rwanda — — — — — n/a n/a — 
			 Sierra Leone — — — — * n/a n/a * 
			 Somalia — — — * * n/a n/a 20 
			 South Africa — — — * * n/a n/a — 
			 Sudan — — — — * n/a n/a 5 
			 Tanzania — 5 * * — n/a n/a — 
			 Uganda — — — — — n/a n/a * 
			 Zimbabwe — — — — — n/a n/a 5 
			 Other Africa * * * — * n/a n/a 5 
			 Total Africa 15 15 10 20 25 n/a n/a 85 
			  
			 Iran * — — — * n/a n/a 15 
			 Iraq — — — — * n/a n/a 10 
			 Syria — — — — — n/a n/a — 
			 Other Middle East — — — — — n/a n/a * 
			 Total Middle East * — — — 5 n/a n/a 25 
			  
			 Afghanistan — — — — — n/a n/a * 
			 Australia — — — — — n/a n/a — 
			 Bangladesh — * — — * n/a n/a * 
			 China (including Taiwan) 5 * * * 5 n/a n/a 10 
			 India * — — 5 * n/a n/a 5 
			 Malaysia — — — — — n/a n/a — 
			 New Zealand — — — — — n/a n/a — 
			 Pakistan 5 — 5 * 5 n/a n/a * 
			 Philippines — — — — — n/a n/a — 
			 South Korea — — — — — n/a n/a — 
			 Sri Lanka 5 * * 5 — n/a n/a 5 
			 Thailand — — — — — n/a n/a — 
			 Vietnam — — — — — n/a n/a 5 
			 Other Asia and Oceania * — — — — n/a n/a — 
			 Total Asia and Oceania 15 5 5 15 10 n/a n/a 25 
			  
			 Other and not known — — — — — n/a n/a — 
			  
			 Grand Total 35 20 25 45 40 n/a n/a 150 
			 n/a = Not available. Following a change in the system in which information is collected, published statistics on all persons detained under sole immigration act powers by length of detention are not available for December 2006 and 2007. (1) Relates to most recent period of sole detention. (2) Figures rounded to the nearest 5 (— = 0, * = 1 or 2), may not sum to the totals shown because of independent rounding and exclude persons detained in police cells, prison service establishments and those detained under both criminal and immigration powers. (3) Figures include dependants. (4) Figures exclude those detained in Oakington Reception Centre; where persons have been transferred to and subsequently from Oakington, excludes time in detention prior to transfer from Oakington. (5) Figures are based on management information. This information has not been quality assured under national statistics protocols, is subject to change and should be treated as provisional. (6) EU accession states: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.

Entry Clearances: Business

Dominic Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the Border Agency will check that a foreign national entering the country as a business visitor does not work whilst in the UK.

Phil Woolas: Visa nationals seeking to enter the United Kingdom as business visitors need to satisfy the entry clearance officer and, along with non-visa nationals, the immigration officer that they meet the requirements for business visitors in the immigration rules. The rules include a requirement that the person is intending to undertake a permissible business visitor activity in the UK.
	The UK border agency is committed to tackling illegal migrant working and will act on any intelligence it receives that a business is employing illegal workers. Those individuals who are found to be working in breach of their granted leave may be subject to appropriate enforcement action.
	Equally, if an employer is found to be employing an illegal migrant worker and they have not ensured that the person has full entitlement to work in the UK, then they may be subject to a civil penalty of up to £10,000 or, in more serious cases, criminal prosecution. If convicted on indictment, the employer may face an unlimited fine and in some cases, imprisonment for up to two years.

Written Questions: Government Responses

Jennifer Willott: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when she plans to answer question 251383, tabled on 22 January 2009, on ICT projects; and if she will make a statement.

Phil Woolas: I replied to the hon. Member on 24 March 2009,  Official Report, column 299W.

Alastair Campbell

Greg Hands: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when Alistair Campbell's security pass for 10 Downing Street was withdrawn.

Kevin Brennan: It has been the practice of successive Governments not to comment on security matters.

Employment

Frank Field: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster pursuant to the Answer of 9 March 2009,  Official Report, columns 1666-7W, on employment, how many and what proportion of  (a) UK born UK nationals,  (b) non-UK born UK nationals,  (c) UK born non-UK nationals and  (d) non-UK born non-UK nationals there were in the working population in each year since 1997.

Kevin Brennan: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the Authority to reply.
	 Letter from Karen Dunnell, dated March 2009:
	As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking pursuant to the Answer of 9 March 2009, Official Report, columns 1666-7W, on employment, how many and what proportion of (a) UK born UK nationals, (b) non-UK born UK nationals, (c) UK born non-UK nationals and (d) non-UK born non-UK nationals there were in the working population in each year since 1997. (267739)
	The requested information is shown in the attached table.
	The estimates are derived from the Labour Force Survey. As with any sample survey, estimates from the LFS are subject to a margin of uncertainty. This is assessed in a footnote to the table.
	The figures in the table are derived from the LFS microdata which are weighted using the official population estimates published in autumn 2007. Consequently the 2007 and 2008 estimates are not entirely consistent with the figures published in the monthly Labour Market Statistics First Release, or the non-UK born employment figures published every quarter, which are weighted using more up-to-date population estimates.
	
		
			  People aged 16 and over in employment by nationality and country of birth, three month period ending December, 1997-2008—United Kingdom, not seasonally adjusted 
			   UK born UK nationals  Non-UK born UK nationals  UK born non-UK nationals  Non-UK born non-UK nationals 
			   Number (thousand)  As a percentage of all people in employment  Number (thousand)  As a percentage of all people in employment  Number (thousand)  As a percentage of all people in employment  Number (thousand)  As a percentage of all people in employment 
			 1997 24,664 92 1,025 4 — — 988 4 
			 1998 24,861 92 1,093 4 — — 1,047 4 
			 1999 25,248 92 1,074 4 — — 1,046 4 
			 2000 25,321 92 1,066 4 — — 1,204 4 
			 2001 25,464 91 1,125 4 — — 1,234 4 
			 2002 25,580 91 1,178 4 — — 1,354 5 
			 2003 25,734 91 1,184 4 — — 1,376 5 
			 2004 25,838 90 1,226 4 — — 1,585 6 
			 2005 25,823 90 1,298 5 — — 1,710 6 
			 2006 25,792 88 1,347 5 37 0 1,971 7 
			 2007 25,844 88 1,427 5 — — 2,177 7 
			 2008(1) *25,581 87 *1,466 5 ****— — *2,354 8 
			 — = Sample size too small for reliable estimates. (1) Coefficients of Variation have been calculated as an indication of the quality of the estimates, as described below:  Guide to Quality: The Coefficient of Variation (CV) indicates the quality of an estimate, the smaller the CV value the higher the quality. The true value is likely to lie within +/- twice the CV—for example, for an estimate of 200 with a CV of 5 per cent. we would expect the population total to be within the range 180-220.  Key Coefficient of Variation (CV) (%) Statistical Robustness * 0 [le] CV < 5 Estimates are considered precise. ** 5 [le] CV < 10 Estimates are considered reasonably precise. *** 10 [le] CV < 20 Estimates are considered acceptable. **** CV ≥20 Estimates are considered too unreliable for practical purposes and have not been provided.  Note: It should be noted that the above estimates exclude people in most types of communal establishment (e.g. hotels, boarding houses, hostels, mobile home sites etc.).  Source: Labour Force Survey

Energy: Conservation

Greg Clark: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what estimate he has made of the number of people employed in green industries in the UK.

Joan Ruddock: I have been asked to reply.
	Independent consultants commissioned by BERR estimate that there were 881,300 people employed in the low carbon and environmental goods and services sector in the UK during 2007-08.
	The full report is available on the BERR website.

Business Improvement Districts

Paul Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government pursuant to the answer of 12 March 2009,  Official Report, columns 726-30W, on business improvement districts, when each business improvement district (BID) was first approved; how many times each BID has been re-approved; what the result of each ballot held on BID approval has been; for what purposes each BID was established; how much revenue each BID has generated since its establishment; and if she will make a statement.

John Healey: The following BIDs have been re-approved for a second term:
	Reading
	Bristol
	Paddington
	Liverpool
	Coventry City Centre
	New West End Company
	Heart of London
	Government do not hold the other information requested.
	The National BIDs Advisory Service provided by the Association for Town Centre Management publishes BID ballot results which is available at:
	www.ukbids.org/

Coastal Areas

Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what her Department's definition of a principal seaside town is; and whether this category is sub-divided.

Sadiq Khan: The definition of a principal seaside town is provided within "England's Seaside Towns: A 'benchmarking' study", which was commissioned by CLG and published in November 2008. Although the Department uses the definition of the 37 principal seaside towns for analytical purposes, it is not restricted to using this definition for either analytical or policy purposes.
	These seaside towns are accurately defined at ward-level, generally by their built-up area, which have also been accurately matched to lower super output areas (LSOAs) and have a population of at least 10,000. No sub divisions of this definition are employed.

Community Relations

Patrick Mercer: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government with reference to the Prevent strand of Project Contest, in which boroughs the Pan-London Somali Youth Forum is operating; how much each borough implementing the forum project was allocated in 2007-08; what the budget is for the project for 2008-09; and what mechanisms are in place to assess whether the Pan-London Somali Youth Forum is effective in preventing radicalisation amongst Somali youths.

Vernon Coaker: I have been asked to reply.
	The Home Office has made a grant of £57,511 available to the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) in 2008-09 to support the Pan-London Somali Youth Forum project as part of the Prevent strategy.
	The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) is working with the Pan-London Somali Youth Forum so that it will have a representative from 16 London boroughs: Barnet, Bromley, Camden, Ealing, Greenwich, Hammersmith and Fulham, Hackney, Haringey, Harrow, Hounslow, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth, Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Wandsworth.
	The Home Office is monitoring progress under the terms of the grant agreement with the MPS.

Community Relations: Finance

Parmjit Dhanda: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what the budget for Preventing Violent Extremism projects is for 2009-10.

Sadiq Khan: The Department has allocated £27.5 million on PREVENT-related projects in the financial year 2009-10. In addition, other Government Departments will be supporting projects in this area, principally the Home Office which plans to spend £34 million in 2009-10.

Departmental Procurement

Caroline Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government with reference to the answer of 6 October 2008,  Official Report, column 304W, on departmental procurement, if she will place in the Library a copy of the invoices for the expenditure at Majestic Wine Warehouse Ltd; and for what purpose the expenditure was incurred.

Sadiq Khan: The expenditure was incurred for the purposes of official hospitality for a number of events. For reasons of commercial confidentiality it is not normal practice to make public copies of invoices.

Departmental Training

Greg Hands: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government pursuant to the answer of 9 February 2009,  Official Report, column 1689W, on departmental training, which Ministers took advice on  (a) continuing professional development and  (b) speeches; and what the cost was in each case.

Sadiq Khan: The training referred to in my earlier answer of 9 February 2009,  Official Report, column 1689W, was: advice on continuing professional development; and advice on speeches; and cost in total £650 and £2,115 respectively. Identifying Ministers who undertake training would, or would be likely to, discourage participation in future training sessions, acting as a disincentive for Ministers to undertake formal professional development.

Fire Services

John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what the timetables are for the implementation of the data capture migration toolkit in each fire brigade in each region; and if she will make a statement.

Sadiq Khan: The first part of the data capture and migration toolkit was rolled out to those Fire and Rescue Services who requested it by the end of February 2009 (some 40 fire brigades in total). The next phase of the data capture toolkit is under development and will be released later this year, in discussion with the Fire and Rescue Services.

Fire Services

John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what the current planned date is for each fire brigade to cut over to each regional control centre; and if she will make a statement.

Sadiq Khan: I refer to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on 11 December 2008,  Official Report, columns 248-50W, setting out the revised cut over schedule.

Housing Associations: Finance

Grant Shapps: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what estimate she has made of the number of housing associations in need of financial assistance in the most recent period for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement.

Iain Wright: The TSA carries out annual reviews of housing associations' financial position and grades each organisation on a scale of 1 to 4 as follows:
	1—Satisfactory
	2—Satisfactory, but areas of exposure noted
	3—Concerns
	4—Serious concerns
	All but six associations have so far received a grading of 1 or 2. The other six associations are graded at three and no organisation is graded four. The TSA is working closely with all six organisations to resolve their issues and is hopeful of a successful resolution of the issues in each case.

Housing Associations: Finance

Grant Shapps: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what recent discussions she has had with  (a) the Chancellor of the Exchequer and  (b) banks in which the Government has purchased a holding on (i) the level of lending to housing associations and (ii) the interest rates at which those banks lend to housing associations.

Iain Wright: Ministers from the Department are meeting regularly with their HM Treasury counterparts to discuss these issues, officials are also in regular communication with HM Treasury, the Council of Mortgage Lenders, and individual lenders to discuss the issue of lending to housing associations.
	Communities and Local Government officials are also engaged in ongoing discussions with HM Treasury on the lending agreements signed by banks participating in the Government's Asset Protection Scheme.

Housing Market

Grant Shapps: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how much her Department spent against its Objective 4 to deliver a better balance between housing supply and demand in each of the last five years; and what each figure represents in 2008-09 prices.

Iain Wright: £11,259 billion was spent between 2003-04 and 2007-08 by the Department. The figures for each year in cash terms and in 2008-9 prices are shown in the following table.
	
		
			  £ billion 
			   Actuals  2009-09 prices 
			 2003-04 1.937 2.218 
			 2004-05 2.087 2.326 
			 2005-06 2.098 2.291 
			 2006-07 2.452 2.608 
			 2007-08 2.685 2.772 
			 Total 11.259 12.215 
		
	
	Expenditure has been converted to 2008-09 prices using the GDP deflator as published by HMT. This deflator is calculated from ONS data for seasonally adjusted current and constant price GDP for years up to 2007-08. 2008-09 is derived from HM Treasury forecasts for GDP deflator increases at the Pre-Budget Report 2008.

Housing: Crime Prevention

Derek Twigg: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what steps have been taken to implement the provisions of the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Act 2004.

Iain Wright: The provisions of the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Act 2004 mainly amended the Building Act 1984 to allow building regulations to be made for more purposes than previously. A number of the powers have been used to make building regulations since the 2004 Act came into force, in particular in respect of the energy efficiency provisions of the Building Regulations. This Department has publicly consulted on proposals for the provisions in the Act on local authority registers of information, certification of work, and appointed persons and management of works and is considering how best to proceed.
	The Act also requires a biennial report on the building stock in England and Wales, with particular reference to energy efficiency and sustainability, to be made to Parliament. The first report covering the period November 2004 to November 2006 was made in February 2007. A second report, covering the period November 2006 to November 2008, is currently being prepared.

Housing: Standards

Grant Shapps: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how much her Department plans to spend on improving the supply and quality of housing in  (a) 2008-09,  (b) 2009-10 and  (c) 2010-11 in (i) cash terms and (ii) 2008-09 prices.

Iain Wright: £11.5 billion, breakdown by financial year shown in the following table, will be allocated to deliver supply and quality of housing during the current comprehensive spending review period. The Government announced packages of measures in May, July, September, the pre-Budget report and at the Queen's Speech, to address the current conditions and long-term challenges facing the housing market. This includes £550 million brought forward from the 2010-11 budgets to 2008-09 and 2009-10 from within the national Affordable Housing Programme for social rented housing. This funding is expected to provide an additional 7,500 homes over the next 18 months.
	
		
			  £ billion 
			   Budgets  In 2008-09 prices 
			 2008-09 3.507 3.507 
			 2009-10 4.556 4.489 
			 2010-11 3.469 3.326 
			 Total 11.532 11.322 
		
	
	If the £11.5 billion is expressed in 2008-09 prices, this equates to around £11.3 billion. Conversion to 2008-9 prices has been done using the GDP deflator as published by HMT. Years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are derived from HM Treasury forecasts for GDP deflator increases at the pre-Budget report 2008.

Local Government Finance

Grant Shapps: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government 
	(1)  how much funding her Department has provided to local authorities in social housing grant in each region in each year since 1997;
	(2)  how much funding her Department has provided to local authorities in social housing grant payments in each year since 1997 at 2008-09 prices.

Iain Wright: The Homes and Communities Agency has not paid social housing grant direct to local authorities and has only had the power to do so since the Housing Act 2004. This allowed organisations other than housing associations to bid for social housing grant the main capital subsidy for new housing. Arms Length Management Organisations (ALMO) have been able to qualify through the pre-qualification process to bid for SHG from April 2008.
	In September 2008, we announced that we would invite councils to bid to the HCA for social housing grant on the same basis as ALMOs and special purpose vehicles. We are also consulting on changes to council housing finance rules which would allow councils to keep the full income and capital returns on any investment they make in new council housing. The revenue and capital changes would help councils put together viable bids for social housing grant from the HCA. These changes should result in an increase in building by councils.

Mobile Homes

Richard Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what definition of a caravan is used in relation to decisions under planning regulations.

Iain Wright: Section 29 (1) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (the 1960 Act) defines, in brief, a caravan as:
	"any structure designed or adapted for human habitation which is capable of being moved from one place to another..."
	Although caravans are mobile and therefore do not constitute development, planning permission may be required for the stationing or use of a caravan if it constitutes a material change in the use of the land. Some permitted development rights relating to caravans can be found in Parts 4 and 5 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, which uses the same definition of caravan as the 1960 Act.

Multiple Occupation

Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what powers planning authorities have to prevent development of houses of multiple occupation.

Iain Wright: The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) is intended to be a deregulatory mechanism which removes the need for planning permission between certain specified uses by grouping into classes land uses which have similar implications for local amenity. The Use Classes Order defines dwelling houses under the C3 use class as houses used by a single person, any number of persons living together as a family, or by no more than six people living together as a single household.
	HMOs do not fall within any of the specified use classes, and therefore are "sui generis" (in a class of its own) in terms of use. Planning permission is needed for a change of use to or from a sui generis use. Therefore, planning permission would be needed for a proposed change of use from a private dwelling to a HMO, or if such is deemed to have occurred.
	Where a planning application is required, local planning authorities will be able to assess the application against the relevant policies in its Development Plan taking into account any other material considerations.
	The current definition of a dwelling house implies that up to six people living together as a single household should not, prima facie, be considered as a HMO. However local planning authorities may determine individual cases on the basis of "fact and degree" and may decide that a dwelling with fewer than six people living together other than as a single household constitutes a HMO.

Non-Domestic Rates: Business

Paul Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what estimate she has made of the percentage change in business rates for  (a) small and  (b) medium-sized and large firms which will take effect in April 2009 in (i) the London Borough of Sutton and (ii) nationwide; and if she will make a statement.

John Healey: The percentage change in business rates for  (a) small and  (b) medium-sized and large firms which will take effect in April 2009 in (i) the London borough of Sutton and (ii) England are the same. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) on 12 March 2009,  Official Report, column 750W.

Non-Domestic Rates: Business

Cheryl Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government if she will adjust the small business rate multiplier for 2009-10 to ensure that it is not increased above the rate of inflation.

John Healey: The small business rate multiplier forthcoming financial years is capped by the retail price index for September of the financial year preceding.

Regional Planning and Development: South East

Anne Milton: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many responses have been received to the South East Plan Consultation  (a) in total and  (b) from people in Guildford.

Sadiq Khan: A full summary of responses will accompany the final RSS when it is published.
	In response to the question;
	 (a) To date, 7,000 responses have generated 13,500 individual comments, and
	 (b) 55 per cent. of responses were received from people in Guildford.

Social Rented Housing

Susan Kramer: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what recent steps she has taken to support financially-sound small and medium-sized housing associations to obtain bank credit in order to purchase homes to meet social housing need.

Iain Wright: The Government have taken a number of steps to help ensure that appropriate credit is available to individuals and businesses, including housing associations.
	The Government have agreed lending commitments with the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), Lloyds Banking Group and Northern Rock. RBS have committed to increasing lending by £25 billion above its baseline budget in 2009 including £16 billion for business lending and £9 billion for mortgage lending. Lloyds have committed to increase lending by £11 billion, including £8 billion for business lending and £3 billion for mortgage lending. Northern Rock has also agreed to provide £5 billion for new mortgages in 2009 and £9 billion in 2010.
	My officials are also in regular communication with HM Treasury, the Council of Mortgage Lenders, and individual lenders to discuss the issue of lending to housing associations.
	The Government have also provided grant funding to help housing associations purchase homes to meet social housing need. In May 2009, we announced that funding would be made available for housing associations to purchase suitable properties from developers for use as affordable housing. £236 million has now been allocated to deliver around 6, 700 homes, the majority for social rent.
	The Government are bringing forward from 2010-11 £550 million to provide around 7,500 social rented homes 18 months earlier than they would otherwise have been delivered. We have also given the Homes and Communities Agency increased flexibility in its use of social housing grant as part of a wider approach to stimulate new development.

Bail Accommodation and Support Service

Shailesh Vara: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many and what proportion of residents of ClearSprings properties have breached their residency obligations since the scheme was introduced; how many have been removed from their property as a result; and if he will make a statement.

David Hanson: As at 24 March 832 service users placed in ClearSprings' properties available to the bail accommodation and support service have been breached and their residency terminated, since the commencement of the scheme in June 2007.
	The scheme is designed to support those who due to their lack of suitable accommodation would otherwise be in prison rather than on bail or HDC. The breach rate shows that, if defendants or offenders abuse the accommodation provided by the scheme, they will be returned swiftly to court or prison as appropriate.

Civil Service

Eleanor Laing: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the Answer of 17 March 2009,  Official Report, column 774, whether proposals on the constitutional position of the Civil Service will be included in the Constitutional Renewal Bill.

Jack Straw: The Governance of Britain Green Paper set out the Government's commitment to bring forward legislation to enshrine the core principles and values of the civil service in law. The draft Constitutional Renewal Bill contained provisions in respect of the civil service. As I said, it remains my intention that the necessary legislation will be brought forward. The Bill is in the final stages of drafting.

Courts: Finance

Dominic Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the budget of  (a) HM Courts Service in each area and  (b) the Royal Courts of Justice group is for (i) 2007-08, (ii) 2008-09 and (iii) 2009-10.

Jack Straw: The gross budget for (i) 2007-08, (ii) 2008-09 and (iii) 2009-10 are shown in the following table by the main areas of business within HMCS and also the Royal Courts of Justice.
	
		
			  Total delegation 
			  £ 000 
			   2007- 08  2008- 09  2009- 10 
			 Regions (excluding RCJ) 844,850 839,100 833,500 
			 Royal Courts Justice (RCJ) 56,734 54,818 56,000 
			 Total 901,584 893,918 889,500 
		
	
	2009-10 figures are provisionally agreed and could possibly be altered to reflect in year movements by end of April 2009.

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991: Convictions

Justine Greening: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people in each  (a) region and  (b) London borough have been (i) charged with and (ii) convicted of offences under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in each year since 1997; how many of those convicted were found guilty of offences under (A) section 1 and (B) section 3 of the Act; and of those how many were given a (1) destruction order, (2) disqualification order, (3) custodial sentence, (4) fine on Level 1 of the standard scale, (5) fine on Level 2 of the standard scale, (6) fine on Level 3 of the standard scale, (7) fine on Level 4 of the standard scale and (8) fine on Level 5 of the standard scale.

Maria Eagle: The number of persons proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts under sections 1, 3 and 4 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, by region, in England and Wales, 1997 to 2007 can be viewed in tables 1 and 2.
	Charging data are not held by the Ministry of Justice, thus prosecution data have been provided in lieu.
	The number of persons fined and given custodial sentences for offences under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 sections 1 and 3 broken down by region and fine levels, in England and Wales, 1997 to 2007 can be viewed in table 3.
	Information on destruction and disqualification orders is not held centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
	Court proceedings data are not available at London borough level.
	These data are on the principal offence basis. The figures given in the following table on court proceedings relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offence for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences, the offence selected is the one for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.
	Court proceedings data for 2008 will be available in the autumn of 2009.
	
		
			  Table 1: Number of persons proceeded against at magistrates courts, under Section 1, Section 3 and Section 4 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, by region, in England and Wales, 1997 to 2007( 1, 2, 3) 
			  Proceeded against 
			 
			  Region  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007 
			  Section 1, 3, and 4 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 
			 North East 50 77 72 72 59 66 64 76 55 71 95 
			 North West 77 108 124 118 123 111 151 138 129 157 184 
			 Yorkshire and Humberside 46 90 82 69 90 87 107 119 134 165 112 
			 East Midlands 25 62 61 60 46 67 75 78 105 78 93 
			 West Midlands 46 93 81 65 127 133 137 143 137 108 150 
			 East of England 38 54 60 72 57 87 80 63 108 104 128 
			 London 80 83 79 92 97 86 91 82 80 102 150 
			 South East 79 93 95 118 99 107 98 127 134 158 138 
			 South West 36 57 81 64 109 100 107 75 67 68 65 
			 Wales 27 45 67 93 79 78 78 89 76 66 78 
			 England and Wales 504 762 802 823 886 922 988 990 1,025 1,077 1,193 
			 
			  Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991  
			 North East 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 
			 North West 3 1 1 2 0 0 1 5 1 1 25 
			 Yorkshire and Humberside 1 3 1 1 0 2 1 2 4 0 4 
			 East Midlands 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 3 1 0 
			 West Midlands 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 21 
			 East of England 2 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 1 1 
			 London 16 17 12 6 7 9 2 3 1 6 43 
			 South East 6 9 7 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 
			 South West 0 2 4 2 0 1 1 0 2 2 4 
			 Wales 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 
			 England and Wales 31 35 26 17 9 16 7 22 18 11 103 
			 
			  Section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991  
			 North East 49 77 70 72 59 66 64 76 55 71 90 
			 North West 74 107 123 116 121 111 149 132 128 155 159 
			 Yorkshire and Humberside 45 87 80 68 88 84 106 117 130 164 108 
			 East Midlands 23 62 61 59 46 67 75 64 102 77 93 
			 West Midlands 44 93 81 65 126 132 137 143 132 108 128 
			 East of England 36 52 60 66 57 84 80 62 107 102 124 
			 London 64 66 67 86 90 77 89 79 79 96 106 
			 South East 69 84 88 115 98 105 98 127 134 158 138 
			 South West 36 49 50 46 74 73 87 57 51 57 57 
			 Wales 26 44 66 90 79 78 76 89 73 66 77 
			 England and Wales 466 721 746 783 838 877 961 946 991 1,054 1,080 
			 (1) These data are on the principal offence basis. (2) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used. (3) Includes the following statutes and corresponding offence descriptions:  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 1(2)(a) Breeding or breeding from a fighting dog.  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 1(2)(b) Selling, exchanging, offering, advertising or exposing for sale a fighting dog.  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 1(2)(c) Giving or offering to give a fighting dog.  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 1(2)(d) Allowing a fighting dog to be in a public place without a muzzle or a lead.  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 1(2)(e) Abandoning, or allowing to stray, a fighting dog.  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 1(3) Possession, without exemption, of a Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa or other designated fighting dog.  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 3(1) Owner or person in charge allowing dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place injuring any person.  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 3(3) Owner or person in charge allowing dog to enter a non-public place and injure any person.  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 3(1) Owner or person in charge allowing dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place, no injury being caused.  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 3(3) Owner or person in charge allowing dog to enter a non- public place causing reasonable apprehension of injury to a person.  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 S.4 (8) Failing to give up a dog for destruction or having custody of a dog while disqualified.  Source: Office for Criminal Justice Reform, Evidence & Analysis Unit - Ministry of Justice 
		
	
	
		
			  Table 2:  N umber of persons found guilty at all courts under Section 1, Section 3 and Section 4 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, by region, in England and Wales, 1997 to 2007( 1, 2, 3, 4) 
			  Found guilty 
			  Region  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007 
			  Section 1, 3, and 4 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 
			 North East 17 33 42 38 40 42 35 39 39 45 72 
			 North West 39 67 80 73 75 73 96 82 84 107 124 
			 Yorkshire and Humberside 18 53 43 41 51 44 60 73 87 104 64 
			 East Midlands 17 32 35 38 23 38 42 53 62 47 61 
			 West Midlands 22 47 38 30 73 74 63 86 76 84 102 
			 East of England 14 29 32 39 31 38 45 36 67 63 82 
			 London 42 42 41 42 51 52 47 48 47 57 91 
			 South East 43 45 52 58 52 51 42 64 74 82 86 
			 South West 20 32 43 38 76 57 55 51 40 37 44 
			 Wales 9 26 36 49 50 48 46 50 49 42 56 
			 England and Wales 241 406 442 446 522 517 531 582 625 668 782 
			 
			  Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991  
			 North East 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 
			 North West 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 1 19 
			 Yorkshire and Humberside 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 
			 East Midlands 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 1 0 0 
			 West Midlands 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 15 
			 East of England 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 
			 London 11 8 7 2 3 5 1 1 1 3 32 
			 South East 3 1 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 
			 South West 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 
			 Wales 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 
			 England and Wales 19 15 12 8 4 7 3 17 11 6 74 
			 
			  Section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991  
			 North East 17 33 41 38 40 42 35 39 39 45 68 
			 North West 38 67 80 73 74 73 94 78 83 106 105 
			 Yorkshire and Humberside 18 52 42 40 49 43 60 73 83 104 63 
			 East Midlands 15 32 35 38 23 38 42 39 61 47 61 
			 West Midlands 20 47 38 30 72 74 63 86 74 84 86 
			 East of England 13 27 32 36 31 36 45 35 66 61 81 
			 London 31 34 34 40 48 47 46 47 46 54 59 
			 South East 38 44 49 55 52 50 42 64 74 82 86 
			 South West 20 24 26 24 48 36 44 36 30 33 38 
			 Wales 8 25 35 48 50 48 45 50 49 42 56 
			 England and Wales 218 385 412 422 487 487 516 547 605 658 703 
			 (1) These data are on the principal offence basis. (2) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used. (3) Includes the following statutes and corresponding offence descriptions:  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 1(2)(a) Breeding or breeding from a fighting dog.  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 1(2)(b) Selling, exchanging, offering, advertising or exposing for sale a fighting dog.  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 1(2)(c) Giving or offering to give a fighting dog.  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 1(2)(d)  Allowing a fighting dog to be in a public place without a muzzle or a lead.  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 1(2)(e ) Abandoning, or allowing to stray, a fighting dog.  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 1(3) Possession, without exemption, of a Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa or other designated fighting dog.  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 3(1) Owner or person in charge allowing dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place injuring any person.  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 3(3) Owner or person in charge allowing dog to enter a non-public place and injure any person.  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 3(1) Owner or person in charge allowing dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place, no injury being caused.  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sec 3(3) Owner or person in charge allowing dog to enter a non- public place causing reasonable apprehension of injury to a person.  Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 S.4 (8) Failing to give up a dog for destruction or having custody of a dog while disqualified (4) Staffordshire Police Force were only able to submit sample data for persons proceeded against and convicted in the magistrates' courts for the year 2000. Although sufficient to estimate higher orders of data, these data are not robust enough at a detailed level and have been excluded from the table.  Source: Office for Criminal Justice Reform, Evidence & Analysis Unit - Ministry of Justice 
		
	
	
		
			  Table 3: Persons fined and given custodial sentences for offences under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Sections 1 and 3 broken down by region and fine levels, England and Wales,1997  to  2007 
			  Dangerous Dogs Act1991/Region/Sentence  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007 
			  Dangerous_Dogs_Act_section_1
			   North East Persons fined
			   Level 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 
			   Persons given custodial sentence 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   
			   North West Persons fined
			   Level 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 
			   Level 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 
			   Persons given custodial sentence 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 
			   
			   Yorkshire and Humberside Persons fined
			   Level 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 
			   Persons given custodial sentence 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 
			   
			   East Midlands Persons fined
			   Level 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 
			   Level 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 
			   Persons given custodial sentence 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   
			   West Midlands Persons fined
			   Level 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 
			   Persons given custodial sentence 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 11 
			   
			   East of England Persons fined
			   Level 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 
			   Persons given custodial sentence 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 
			   
			   London Persons fined
			   Level 1 4 2 4 1 0 4 1 1 1 1 7 
			   Level 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 
			   Persons given custodial sentence 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 
			   
			   South East Persons fined
			   Level 1 1 0 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 
			   Persons given custodial sentence 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   
			   South West Persons fined
			   Level 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   Level 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 
			   Persons given custodial sentence 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   
			   Wales Persons fined
			   Level 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 
			   Level 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   Level 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   Persons given custodial sentence 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   
			  Dangerous_Dogs_Act_section_3
			   North East Persons fined
			   Level 1 4 13 11 8 7 12 10 5 8 11 16 
			   Level 2 3 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 
			   Persons given custodial sentence 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 
			   
			   North West Persons fined
			   Level 1 10 30 36 30 21 25 21 30 23 41 27 
			   Level 2 2 4 1 3 4 2 9 1 3 3 7 
			   Level 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 
			   Level 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 
			   Level 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 
			   Persons given custodial sentence 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 1 1 3 12 
			   
			   Yorkshire and Humberside Persons fined
			   Level 1 5 14 15 11 21 24 22 23 27 22 18 
			   Level 2 1 1 2 0 2 1 3 3 7 4 4 
			   Level 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 
			   Persons given custodial sentence 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 4 2 
			   
			   East Midlands Persons fined
			   Level 1 5 10 11 13 8 14 13 11 18 8 14 
			   Level 2 0 0 3 2 1 3 0 1 2 3 3 
			   Level 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 
			   Level 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 
			   Persons given custodial sentence 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 3 2 
			   
			   West Midlands Persons fined
			   Level 1 9 9 11 8 24 31 26 34 28 35 27 
			   Level 2 0 3 3 2 5 0 3 4 6 4 6 
			   Level 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 
			   Level 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 
			   Level 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			   Persons given custodial sentence 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 2 4 
			   
			   East of England Persons fined
			   Level 1 3 9 8 7 10 15 14 12 20 17 21 
			   Level 2 0 0 0 2 4 2 6 3 4 2 6 
			   Level 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 
			   Level 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 
			   Persons given custodial sentence 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 
			   
			   London Persons fined
			   Level 1 12 8 12 17 20 15 20 14 9 12 9 
			   Level 2 3 2 1 7 0 3 4 5 3 4 6 
			   Level 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 
			   Level 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 
			   Persons given custodial sentence 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 2 0 3 4 
			   
			   South East Persons fined
			   Level 1 9 12 17 19 13 17 9 14 15 19 27 
			   Level 2 0 5 2 1 4 2 6 5 3 10 7 
			   Level 3 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 
			   Level 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 
			   Persons given custodial sentence 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 
			   
			   South West Persons fined
			   Level 1 6 6 9 7 17 8 7 6 4 5 8 
			   Level 2 0 1 2 4 6 2 3 0 1 4 1 
			   Level 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 
			   Persons given custodial sentence 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 
			   
			   Wales Persons fined
			   Level 1 4 11 13 20 23 22 21 27 20 17 19 
			   Level 2 0 1 0 0 2 3 1 0 3 2 4 
			   Level 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 
			   Level 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 
			   Persons given custodial sentence 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 
			  Note: These figures are on the principal offence basis.  Source: (OMSAS)03-09

Departmental Air Travel

Francis Maude: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice with reference to the answer to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East of 21 October 2008,  Official Report, column 257W, on departmental air travel, if he will place in the Library the figures for 2007-08.

Phil Woolas: I have been asked to reply.
	The Department's air travel for 2007-08 is set out in the following table:
	
		
			   km 
			 Domestic air travel 4,985,381 
			 Short-haul air travel 2,601,782 
			 Long-haul air travel 6,369,225 
			 Total 13,956,388 
		
	
	These data cover some business areas that are now part of Ministry of Justice.
	All official travel is carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Service Management Code.
	The Home Office participates in the Government Carbon Offsetting Fund which is co-ordinated by DEFRA. This ensures the Department offsets carbon dioxide emissions from its official air travel.

Departmental Electronic Equipment

Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much his Department and its predecessor have spent on  (a) flat screen televisions,  (b) DVD players and  (c) stereo equipment in each of the last three years.

Maria Eagle: The information requested is contained in the following table.
	
		
			   2005-06  2006-07  2007-08 
			   Flat screen  DVD  Stereo  Flat screen  DVD  Stereo  Flat screen  DVD  Stereo 
			 MOJ HQ(1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 40,193 3,876 0 
			 Office for Criminal Justice Reform Based in Home Office premises 
			 HMPS 0 
			 NOMS 0 
			 HMCS 0 
			 Tribunal 0 0 0 10,000 0 0 10,000 0 0 
			 Total 0 0 0 10,000 0 0 50,193 3,876 0 
			 Grand total £64,069 
			 (1)Cost includes supply, installation and commissioning, exclusive of VAT. 
		
	
	The vast majority of the screens installed at 102PF are not operating as televisions but even where for example they run BBC News 24 it is not obtained via the in-built receivers but run over the network via the "media star" installation (Parliamentary TV).
	Information for Her Majesty's Prison Service. National Offender Management Service and Her Majesty's Courts Service could be obtained only at disproportionate costs. The information requested is not held centrally, requiring contact with each court and prison region. The Prison Service alone has 40 regions nationwide.
	In addition to the costs stated for the Tribunals Service (TS), a further £35,000 was capitalised on video conference facilities for CICAP in 2006-07. This enabled the reduction of costs of staff incurred through travel/time within the TS.

Departmental Energy

Greg Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what steps have been taken by  (a) his Department and  (b) its agencies to improve the thermal efficiency of their buildings in the last 12 months.

Shahid Malik: Steps taken by the Ministry of Justice to improve the thermal efficiency of its core headquarters buildings in the last 12 months cover a range of work such as:
	the installation of additional roof insulation;
	improved draught proofing of windows;
	thermal insulation of pipework;
	re-balancing of air conditioning to improve operational, energy and thermal efficiency; and,
	the refurbishment of 102 Petty France which saw the building fabric and systems improved to meet the high BREEAM(1) standards.
	In respect of the Agencies for which the Ministry is responsible:
	Her Majesty's Court Service (HMCS): all new buildings are required to be designed using the Court Standard and Design Guide which incorporates building regulations and includes details of U values (the measurement of heat transfer through a given building material, glass etc., the lower the U Value—the better the insulator) and thermal modelling. The use of the Design Guide assists developers in achieving BREEAM "Excellent" for all new building and "Very Good" for refurbishments. This means that they would be in excess of Building Regulations in terms of thermal efficiency. There are a wide range of factors required to achieve BREEAM "Excellent", so the extent of the thermal efficiency improvement would vary from building to building so as to achieve the best overall thermal performance for that building.
	HMCS has carried out research to ascertain which types of building from the existing stock are the most energy efficient. HMCS has used this information to prioritise the retention of the most energy efficient buildings, the disposal of the least energy efficient, and targeted improvement of the thermal efficiency of all retained building stock. This is leading to an ongoing improvement in the thermal efficiency of the overall estate.
	Tribunals Service no specific work has been undertaken in the last 12 months.
	National Offender Management Service: Her Majesty's Prison Service (HMPS) in undertaking a Carbon Management Programme (from June 2008) HMPS are identifying cost-effective opportunities for saving carbon. Included in these are building fabric improvements to improve the thermal efficiency. These opportunities are being costed and prioritised, and will be implemented subject to approval of the implementation plan.
	HM Land Registry have not taken specific action to improve the thermal efficiency of their buildings, in the last 12 months, mainly because they carried out this work on most of their buildings over a lengthy period prior to then especially in relation to providing double glazed windows.
	The National Archives (TNA) no direct steps have been taken to improve thermal efficiency of TNA's Kew site in the last 12 months. The Carbon Trust and TEAM Energy Auditing Agency have provided energy saving recommendations.
	(1) For over a decade, BREEAM has been to assess the environmental performance of both new and existing buildings. It is regarded by the UK's construction and property sectors as the measure of best practice in environmental design and management.

Departmental Energy

Greg Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what recent progress his Department has made towards the target of increasing its energy efficiency per square metre of its Estate by 15 per cent. by 2010, relative to 1999-2000 levels; and if he will make a statement.

Shahid Malik: Ministry of Justice and its Executive agencies have made progress towards the target of increasing energy efficiency per square metre of estate by 15 per cent. by 2010, relative to 1999-2000 levels. In 2007-08, we achieved an 18.8 per cent. reduction in energy use. This information was published in the seventh annual "Sustainable Development in Government" Report (SDiG) at:
	http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/sdig2008

Departmental Furniture

Madeleine Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much has been spent by his Department on furniture made by  (a) British firms,  (b) Remploy and  (c) overseas firms in each year since it was established.

Maria Eagle: The Ministry of Justice was established on 9 May 2007. Since establishment, expenditure on furniture for planned large scale projects and refurbishments, breaks down as follows:
	 (a) British firms; £5,999,577.
	 (b) Remploy; Nil.
	 (c) Overseas firms; £1,525,000.
	Remploy has not competed for any raw material tender to-date. We manufacture furniture in house, using contracted back up suppliers and inmates through prison industries. In line with our requirement to use prison industries as far as possible for this area of work. However we are currently in the final stages of awarding a contract to Remploy for the provision of education and employment training for prisoners. The contract award is for three years with provision to extend for an additional year and is valued at approximately £1.6 million.
	Expenditure is also incurred by individual business areas for local ad-hoc requirements, however records for this expenditure are not held centrally and to provide information on these purchases would be disproportionate in terms of cost and time.

Departmental Public Appointments

Julia Goldsworthy: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice which former  (a) Members of the House of Lords and  (b) hon. Members who left Parliament since 1997 have been appointed to public bodies for which his Department is responsible; and who made each such appointment.

Michael Wills: NDPBs handle their own appointments and this information on who has been appointed and who made these appointments is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Lists of board members are published in individual bodies' annual reports and accounts.

National Offender Management Service: Manpower

Dominic Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what change is planned in the full-time equivalent headcount of  (a) the National Offender Management Service,  (b) the National Probation Service and  (c) HM Courts Service by the end of 2009-10.

Jack Straw: The Ministry of Justice is committed to delivering £1 billion of saving by March 2011 and establishing a modern and efficient justice system that delivers the best possible service to our customers and the public.
	Budgets for 2009-10 have been agreed. Detailed work force plans for next financial year are being developed across headquarters; by Regional and area directors in HM Courts Service; and by Directors of Offender Management, Governors and Chief Officers of Probation for National Offender Management Service, including the level of estimated exits due to natural wastage. This work has yet to be completed and the Department will continue to consult with trade unions as the plans develop. I will write to the hon. Member with the figures when they are available, which I expect to be by the end of June 2009.

Offences against Children

Dominic Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many offenders aged 21 years or over received a caution for sexual activity with a child under 13 years in each year since 2004.

Maria Eagle: Information on the number of offenders aged 21 and over cautioned for sexual activity with a child under 13 in England and Wales in each year from 2004 to 2007 (latest available) is shown in the following table.
	For such indictable only offences, the decision to prosecute is taken by the Crown Prosecution Services (CPS), based on the seriousness of the offence, the evidence before them and the public interest. In the majority of cases a caution would not be appropriate for this type of offence. However in exceptional circumstances the police and CPS may decide that it is in the best interests of the victim not to prosecute. Issuing a caution in such circumstances for an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 ensures that the offender will be placed on the sex offenders register. The caution forms part of their criminal record. The caution may also be cited in court in any subsequent proceedings and can be made known to a prospective employer.
	
		
			  Number of offenders aged 21 years and over cautioned for offences relating to sexual activity with a child aged under 13( 1) , England and Wales, 2004 to 2007( 2,)( )( 3) 
			   Aged 21 and over 
			 2004 23 
			 2005 73 
			 2006 69 
			 2007 64 
			 (1) Includes the following statutes under the Sexual Offences Act 2003; Sections 5, 6, 7, 8 (1) (2) and (3), 9 (1)(a)(b)(c)(ii) and (2) and (3), 10 (1)(a)(b)(c)(ii) and (3), 11 (1)(a)(b)(c)(d)(ii) and (2), 12 (1)(a)(b)(c)(ii) and 2, 25 (1)(e)(ii) and (2)-(4)(a)(b), 49 (l)(a)(b)(ii) and (2). (2) The cautions statistics relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been cautioned for two or more offences at the same time the principal offence is the more serious offence. (3) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.  Source: Evidence and Analysis Unit—Office for Criminal Justice Reform.

Offensive Weapons: Sentencing

Dominic Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many offenders received  (a) a caution,  (b) immediate custody,  (c) a fine,  (d) a community sentence,  (e) an absolute or conditional discharge and  (f) another disposal for unlawful possession of a knife in the last year for which data are available.

Jack Straw: The requested information is shown in the following table. Statistics published by the Ministry of Justice in the first quarterly knife crime sentencing bulletin (on 12 March) showed that:
	More offenders are being sent to jail (23 per cent.): the number of offences resulting in immediate custody rose from 1,125 in the last quarter of 2007 to 1,386 in the same period of 2008. On average there was a 40 per cent. increase in the number of prisoners serving a sentence for possession of an offensive weapon between the same periods.
	Fewer cautions being issued: the number fell 31 per cent. over the same period (1,706 in the last quarter of 2008 compared to 2,455 in the same period of 2007).
	More use of tougher community sentences: the number of offences resulting in community sentences rose 16 per cent. (from 1,861 in the last quarter of 2007 to 2,151 in the same period of 2007).
	Longer sentences: the average immediate custodial sentence has risen by 38 per cent. (from 133 days in the last quarter of 2007 to 184 days in the same period of 2008).
	The proportion of all possession offences resulting in immediate custody rose to 21 per cent. in the last quarter of 2008 from 17 per cent. in the same period of 2007. The proportion of offences resulting in a caution decreased from 36 per cent. in the last quarter of 2007 to 25 per cent. in the last quarter of 2008.
	The statistics also show a decline in the total number of offences involving possession of a knife or other offensive weapon (6,704 offences were dealt with between October and December last year, compared to 6,808 in the same period of 2007).
	The figures presented are taken from the Ministry of Justice's publication "Knife Crime Sentencing: Quarterly Brief" published on 12 March 2009 and available from:
	http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/knife-crime-sentencing.htm
	These figures have been drawn from the police's administrative IT system, the police national computer (PNC), which, as with any large scale recording system, is subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. The figures are provisional and subject to change as more information is recorded by the police.
	PNC data has been used here rather than court data, which is the usual source of published sentencing statistics, as the PNC provides more up-to-date figures ahead of the finalised annual court data.
	
		
			  Offences involving the possession of a knife or offensive weapon resulting in a caution or sentence( 1, 2) , England and Wales, 2008 
			   Number 
			 Total 27,644 
			   
			 Cautions (includes juvenile reprimands and final warnings) 8,368 
			 Absolute/conditional discharge 1,337 
			 Fine 1,091 
			 Community sentence 8,401 
			 Suspended sentence 2,432 
			 Immediate custody 5,317 
			 Other disposal 698 
			 (1) As recorded by the police on the police national computer. (2) The figures are a count of offences rather than offenders. Where an offender has been sentenced for several possession offences, each sentence has been counted.  Data Source and Quality These figures have been drawn from the police's administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, is subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. The figures are provisional and subject to change as more information is recorded by the police.  Source: OMS Analytical Services, Ministry of Justice.

Prisoners: Drugs

Dominic Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many prisoners enrolled on courses for drug and alcohol abuse in each of the last five years.

Jack Straw: The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) has in place a comprehensive drug treatment framework, based on the National Treatment Agency's revised Models of Care, to address the different needs of drug-misusers in prison. The interventions available are designed to meet the needs of low, moderate and severe drug misusers—irrespective of age, gender or ethnicity.
	The following table shows the number of interventions delivered in the last five full financial years in prisons by intervention type. Individual prisoners may have accessed more than one of these interventions in the time period.
	A range of interventions are available in prisons to support those with an alcohol problem:
	clinical services—alcohol detoxification is available in all local and remand prisons;
	where alcohol is part of a wider substance misuse problem, the full range of drug interventions are available;
	a number of prisons run alcohol awareness courses;
	Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) run groups in over 65 per cent. of prisons;
	some offending behaviour programmes address the underlying factors which occur in alcohol related crime;
	an accredited 12-step alcohol programme is being run at HMP Bullingdon;
	a further four more intensive alcohol programmes based on cognitive behavioural therapy have been piloted at HMP Hull, Forest Bank, Glen Parva and Chelmsford;
	for those prisons involved in the roll-out of the Integrated Drug Treatment System a 90-minute alcohol awareness session has been developed; and
	the young persons substance misuse service for 16 to18-year-old prisoners has a particular focus on alcohol.
	The Ministry of Justice has established a working group to develop proposals to increase the provision of alcohol treatment available in prisons. The number of prisoners accessing services specifically aimed at their alcohol misuse is not collated centrally.
	
		
			  Table 1: Interventions delivered( 1)  (rounded to nearest hundred) 
			  Intervention type  2003-04  2004-05  2005-06  2006-07  2007-08 
			 Intensive Drug Rehabilitation Programmes(2) (starts) 4,700 7,600 10,700 11,200 11,300 
			 CARATs(3) (substance misuse triage assessments) 54,100 59,000 66,000 65,700 65,800 
			 Young People's Substance Misuse Service (initial assessments) — — 8,500 8,300 7,400 
			 Clinical Treatment (detoxification or maintenance prescribing)(4) 57,900 53,900 53,800 51,500 58,800 
			 Total 116,700 120,500 139,000 136,700 143,300 
			 (1) These figures have been drawn from administrative data systems. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the returns, the detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system. (2) Programmes available in prison are split into four main categories: cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT), the 12-Step approach, Therapeutic Communities (TCs), Short Duration Programme (SDP). (3) Counselling, assessment, referral, advice and throughcare services. (4) Drug and alcohol detoxification data cannot be disaggregated.

Prisoners: Suicide

Edward Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many and what proportion of suicides in prisons in England and Wales were committed by  (a) foreign national prisoners and  (b) foreign national prisoners held beyond the expiration of their sentence in each of the last 10 years.

David Hanson: Any death in custody is a tragic event. The Government are committed to learning from such events and reducing the number of self-inflicted deaths in prison custody. The National Offender Management Service has a broad, integrated and evidence-based prisoner suicide prevention and self harm management strategy that seeks to reduce the distress of all those in prison. This encompasses a wide spectrum of prison and Department of Health work around such issues as mental health, substance misuse and resettlement. Any prisoner identified as at risk of suicide or self-harm is cared for using the assessment, care in custody and teamwork (ACCT) procedures.
	The numbers and proportions of foreign national prisoner self-inflicted deaths are summarised in the following table.
	
		
			  Table: Self-inflicted deaths in prison custody (England and Wales) by nationality type 
			  Percentage 
			   EEA foreign n ational  Non  EEA f oreign national  UK  n ational  Total  Foreign nationals 
			 1999 4  84 91 7.7 
			 2000 3 1 77 81 4.9 
			 2001 2 3 68 73 6.8 
			 2002 4 5 86 95 9.5 
			 2003 2 6 86 94 8.5 
			 2004 2 5 88 95 7.4 
			 2005 1 3 72 78 7.7 
			 2006 2 4 61 67 9.0 
			 2007 6 18 68 92 26.1 
			 2008 1 8 52 61 14.8 
		
	
	We do not specifically record whether foreign national prisoners died beyond their expiry date. However, of the 85 self-inflicted deaths among foreign nationals in the 10 years 1999 to 2008 there were four foreign national self-inflicted deaths of immigration detainees recorded in prison custody. Three of these were in 2003 and one in 2008.

Prisons: Standards

Edward Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 5 March 2009,  Official Report, column 1789W, on prisons: standards, when the function of  (a) Her Majesty's Prison Wolds and  (b) Her Majesty's Prison and Young Offenders Institution Ashfield last changed; and for what reason no prison performance rating for each was published in the last quarter.

David Hanson: HMP Wolds opened in April 1992 as a remand prison and in 1993 was re-rolled to a local category B prison holding sentenced prisoners. The initial management contract ran for five years and was renewed for a further five years in 1997. In 2001, HMP Wolds was subject to a competitive re-bid. G4S was the successful bidder for the contract to run HMP Wolds as a category C training prison for a further 10 years.
	HMP and YOI Ashfield opened on 1 November 1999 and accommodated both juveniles (aged 15 to 17) and young offenders (aged 18 to 21) until February 2004 when it was re-rolled as an all juvenile establishment holding young people between 15 but under 18 years of age.
	Performance Management Group (NOMS) owns and manages the Prison Performance Assessment Tool (PPAT) which assesses around 120 public prisons by looking at performance in 33 indicators, and is then cross checked with a rating produced by assessing against a set of 44 indicators in the public prison weighted scorecard. For private prisons only the PPAT is used to produce the data driven assessment. Both HMP Ashfield's and HMP Wolds' performance ratings were published on 12 December 2008 and are available via the following link:
	http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/prison-quarterly-ratings-quarter-2-2008-09.pdf
	In the most recent published ratings (quarter 2) both prisons achieved a level 3 rating for good performance.

Prisons: Crimes of Violence

Paul Holmes: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 
	(1)  how many assaults by prisoners on a  (a) prisoner and  (b) prison officer were recorded in each prison establishment in each year since 2002; and if he will make a statement;
	(2)  how many assaults by prisoners on a  (a) prisoner and  (b) prison officer were recorded in each year since 2002 in each female prison establishment; and if he will make a statement;
	(3)  how many assaults by prisoners on a  (a) prisoner and  (b) prison officer were recorded in each young offenders' institution in each year since 2002; and if he will make a statement.

David Hanson: Reducing violence in prisons is a priority for Ministers, NOMS and the Prison Officers Association and we are collectively committed to working towards a zero tolerance approach to prison violence. Since 2004, a national strategy has directed every public sector prison to have in place a local violence reduction strategy and since mid 2007 this has been applied to the public and contracted out estate. A whole prison approach is encouraged, engaging all staff, all disciplines and prisoners in challenging unacceptable behaviour, problem-solving and personal safety.
	The information set out in tables 1, 2 and 3 show the number of prisoner on prisoner assaults in all prisons, female prisons and young offender institutions respectively. Similarly tables 4, 5 and 6 show the numbers of prisoner on officer assault incidents. It is important to note that the recorded incidents of assaults on prison officers are not completely exclusive to officers and may include assaults on other prison staff. The numbers supplied refer to the number of individual assault incidents; they include all incidents recorded as assaults and may also include threatening behaviour, projection of bodily fluids and other non-contact events and allegations.
	The following information is subject to important qualifications. The NOMS Incident Reporting System processes high volumes of data which are constantly being updated. The numbers provide a good indication of overall numbers but should not be interpreted as absolute. Rises or falls in reported numbers from one year to the next are not a good indicator of an underlying trend for a particular prison. Additionally there have been improvements in reporting over the years, and this is reflected in the tables.
	Assault data is complex and the numbers need to be interpreted with caution. Information recorded as assault incidents may involve one or many prisoners as some assault incidents may involve more than one assailant or more than one victim. Additionally in a proportion of incidents only the victim is known.
	As prisons have changed roles over time the hon. Gentleman's attention is brought to the notes to the tables which indicate when some of the more significant changes took place.
	
		
			  Table 1: Prisoner on prisoner assault incidents by establishment( 1) 
			  Prison  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008 
			 Acklington 49 39 33 38 73 65 50 
			 Albany 3 5 15 3 4   
			 Altcourse 163 159 183 194 195 226 153 
			 Ashfield 429 271 304 500 625 653 608 
			 Ashwell 8 9 15 17 9 17 16 
			 Askham Grange 1 — 1 — 1 1 2 
			 Aylesbury 44 26 21 78 80 79 91 
			 Bedford 49 44 49 41 55 36 55 
			 Belmarsh 60 76 67 53 51 25 25 
			 Birmingham 90 105 139 103 118 109 96 
			 Blakenhurst 271 256 192 149 151 213 87 
			 Blantyre House — — — 1 — — — 
			 Blundeston 36 39 26 14 15 33 30 
			 Brinsford 281 304 326 344 187 187 324 
			 Bristol 107 84 100 95 85 73 72 
			 Brixton 130 122 106 73 40 60 78 
			 Brockhill 23 25 19 28 20 8 7 
			 Bronzefield — — 37 92 113 98 103 
			 Buckley Hall 45 72 76 62 57 37 24 
			 Bullingdon 59 40 36 59 45 68 87 
			 Bullwood Hall — — — 20 16 10 12 
			 Camp Hill 47 67 51 54 55 35 — 
			 Canterbury 9 5 12 15 13 20 30 
			 Cardiff 46 50 53 50 47 25 19 
			 Castington 363 312 384 361 360 385 433 
			 Channings Wood 12 21 22 38 53 54 56 
			 Chelmsford 60 62 82 68 105 32 39 
			 Coldingley 2  16 7 18 11 13 
			 Cookham Wood 7 12 7 2 4 5 19 
			 Dartmoor 25 20 11 29 26 26 38 
			 Deerbolt 154 167 205 164 152 160 180 
			 Doncaster 87 39 77 94 144 127 192 
			 Dorchester 9 13 11 19 18 33 26 
			 Dovegate 40 56 73 66 66 55 44 
			 Dover 14 16 9 9 23 64 47 
			 Downview 13 6 14 29 25 12 12 
			 Drake Hall 3 13 7 9 6 20 8 
			 Durham 65 59 79 89 146 127 120 
			 East Sutton Park — — 3 — — — 1 
			 Eastwood Park 14 23 31 51 47 15 10 
			 Edmunds Hill — 47 26 23 27 26 21 
			 Elmley 88 84 104 134 100 125 122 
			 Erlestoke 6 10 26 26 22 35 38 
			 Everthorpe 9 5 20 42 65 69 61 
			 Exeter 37 37 26 34 35 24 38 
			 Featherstone 60 51 54 69 70 90 103 
			 Feltham 459 569 576 549 476 428 552 
			 Ford 7 2 20 17 6 6 10 
			 Forest Bank 304 308 397 430 339 213 233 
			 Foston Hall 17 19 26 26 23 28 9 
			 Frankland 15 21 18 24 26 31 41 
			 Full Sutton 8 15 27 37 45 52 52 
			 Garth 36 23 27 59 63 65 91 
			 Gartree 1 1 2 9 8 12 9 
			 Glen Parva 222 241 230 269 341 364 464 
			 Gloucester 56 36 62 41 56 47 63 
			 Grendon / Spring Hill 4 5 4 2 2 5 1 
			 Guys Marsh 43 41 49 43 57 73 68 
			 Haslar 5 1 — 2 1 8 15 
			 Haverigg 19 17 22 30 41 68 80 
			 Hewell Cluster — — — — — — 67 
			 Hewell Grange — 1 6 — 1 3 1 
			 High Down 85 97 119 101 134 118 157 
			 Highpoint 130 82 91 72 74 80 82 
			 Hindley 88 177 63 112 348 498 493 
			 Hollesley Bay 179 45 1 4 2 3 2 
			 Holloway 98 91 80 94 121 118 112 
			 Holme House 71 89 69 86 98 124 96 
			 Hull 84 91 168 166 121 140 87 
			 Huntercombe 44 77 79 95 184 280 392 
			 Kennet — — — — — 5 27 
			 Kingston — 2 3 1 3 1 — 
			 Kirkham 3 1 4 3 1 3 2 
			 Kirklevington — — — — 1 — 2 
			 Lancaster 12 11 4 10 10 20 13 
			 Lancaster Farms 130 17 185 435 363 357 326 
			 Latchmere House — — — — — — 1 
			 Leeds 96 148 137 109 104 92 81 
			 Leicester 70 59 53 42 51 34 40 
			 Lewes 89 104 60 62 73 63 130 
			 Leyhill — 3 5 6 7 4 4 
			 Lincoln 81 68 47 56 60 87 121 
			 Lindholme 17 43 42 33 37 52 57 
			 Littlehey 31 32 37 41 39 38 22 
			 Liverpool 94 109 118 127 162 226 222 
			 Long Lartin 16 17 16 36 38 43 29 
			 Low Newton 94 117 89 62 68 65 74 
			 Lowdham Grange 20 19 20 37 73 41 47 
			 Maidstone 16 ¦10 21 14 11 18 15 
			 Manchester 191 217 182 142 172 127 143 
			 Moorland 177 139 34 94 89 91 86 
			 Moorland Open (Hatfield) 28 11 3 8 1 1 2 
			 Morton Hall 7 13 16 9 15 12 8 
			 Mount 17 25 16 55 48 45 77 
			 New Hall 47 32 77 84 44 56 64 
			 North Sea Camp — — 4 3 7 2 2 
			 Northallerton 80 82 84 104 82 100 99 
			 Norwich 132 128 11 20 40 13 4 
			 Nottingham 61 66 74 64 55 85 82 
			 Onley 516 509 161 152 153 216 223 
			 Pare 198 233 227 247 241 315 381 
			 Parkhurst 16 34 38 37 33 9 — 
			 Pentonville 129 165 120 139 155 145 186 
			 Peterborough — — — 100 221 221 213 
			 Portland 71 61 125 154 127 193 165 
			 Preston 23 71 62 77 78 105 117 
			 Ranby 39 38 19 30 52 42 67 
			 Reading 7 23 25 76 57 45 25 
			 Risley 39 60 107 103 102 108 112 
			 Rochester 32 51 102 78 100 75 143 
			 Rye Hill 10 19 40 53 65 66 35 
			 Send 4 5 2 17 11 7 13 
			 Shepton Mallet 10 3 3 1 — 4 2 
			 Shrewsbury 35 44 41 50 29 39 40 
			 Stafford 11 19 41 58 39 76 62 
			 Standford Hill 2 3 2 7 5 4 3 
			 Stocken 37 36 33 39 43 60 57 
			 Stoke Heath 241 137 239 438 506 527 500 
			 Styal 13 9 28 25 39 58 39 
			 Sudbury 1 1 1 2 — 4 1 
			 Swaleside 32 25 25 32 41 52 57 
			 Swansea 9 16 16 20 30 19 26 
			 Swinfen Hall 127 110 96 104 89 88 88 
			 Thorn Cross 56 39 7 19 143 84 42 
			 Usk\Prescoed 1 2 1 3 1 11 13 
			 Verne 10 13 16 22 9 10 18 
			 Wakefield 10 8 18 26 24 17 36 
			 Wandsworth 54 51 74 77 69 95 59 
			 Warren Hill — 93 162 256 268 321 334 
			 Wayland 23 65 51 59 49 58 56 
			 Wealstun 9 14 7 9 28 24 41 
			 Weare 48 52 55 23 — — — 
			 Wellingborough 12 17 12 30 49 35 76 
			 Werrington 114 129 104 139 144 141 197 
			 Wetherby 41 175 414 492 403 353 389 
			 Whatton 3 9 5 2 8 16 26 
			 Whitemoor 30 18 15 21 22 31 27 
			 Winchester 43 65 57 47 35 26 29 
			 Wolds 52 27 41 23 30 49 50 
			 Woodhill 7 27 51 67 57 52 93 
			 Wormwood Scrubs 69 89 129 142 147 137 124 
			 Wymott — 8 3 9 24 30 28 
			 Total 8,686 8,946 9,401 10,876 11,514 11,986 12,740 
		
	
	
		
			  Table 2: Prisoner on prisoner assault incidents in female prisons( 1) 
			  Prison  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008 
			 Askham Grange 1 — 1 — 1 1 2 
			 Bronzefield — — 37 92 113 98 103 
			 Downview 13 6 14 29 25 12 12 
			 Drake Hall 3 13 7 9 6 20 8 
			 East Sutton Park — — 3 — — — 1 
			 Eastwood Park 14 23 31 51 47 15 10 
			 Foston Hall 17 19 26 26 23 28 9 
			 Holloway 98 91 80 94 121 118 112 
			 Low Newton 94 117 89 62 68 65 74 
			 Morton Hall 7 13 16 9 15 12 8 
			 New Hall 47 32 77 84 44 56 64 
			 Send 4 5 2 17 11 7 13 
			 Styal 13 9 28 25 39 58 39 
			 Total 311 328 411 498 513 490 455 
		
	
	
		
			  Table 3: Prisoner on prisoner assault incidents in young offender institutions( 1) 
			  Prison  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008 
			 Ashfield 429 271 304 500 625 653 608 
			 Aylesbury 44 26 21 78 80 79 91 
			 Brinsford 281 304 326 344 187 187 324 
			 Castington 363 312 384 361 360 385 433 
			 Cookham Wood 7 12 7 2 4 5 19 
			 Deerbolt 154 167 205 164 152 160 180 
			 Feltham 459 569 576 549 476 428 552 
			 Glen Parva 222 241 230 269 341 364 464 
			 Hindley 88 177 63 112 348 498 493 
			 Huntercombe 44 77 79 95 184 280 392 
			 Lancaster Farms 130 17 185 435 363 357 326 
			 Northallerton 80 82 84 104 82 100 99 
			 Portland 71 61 125 154 127 193 165 
			 Reading 7 23 25 76 57 45 25 
			 Rochester 32 51 102 78 100 75 143 
			 Stoke Heath 241 137 239 438 506 527 500 
			 Warren Hill — 93 162 256 268 321 334 
			 Werrington 114 129 104 139 144 141 197 
			 Wetherby 41 175 414 492 403 353 389 
			 Total 2,807 2,924 3,635 4,646 4,807 5,151 5,734 
		
	
	
		
			  Table 4: Prisoner on officer assault incidents by prison 
			  Establishment  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008 
			 Acklington 2 3 3 5 7 9 9 
			 Albany 2 3 — — 3 — — 
			 Altcourse 45 43 40 44 36 50 43 
			 Ashfield 124 62 71 152 127 86 128 
			 Ashwell 1 1 — — 4 2 3 
			 Aylesbury 12 15 5 15 18 13 27 
			 Bedford 17 13 10 14 27 12 13 
			 Belmarsh 82 52 43 34 22 22 14 
			 Birmingham 53 58 83 93 78 78 72 
			 Blakenhurst 10 25 51 44 31 35 12 
			 Blundeston 3 2 4 7 7 1 11 
			 Brinsford 24 31 26 17 8 12 17 
			 Bristol 51 25 45 28 41 14 34 
			 Brixton 73 48 64 49 37 36 31 
			 Brockhill 13 5 10 14 9 3 2 
			 Bronzefield — — 17 85 77 41 80 
			 Buckley Hall 12 36 16 23 10 11 9 
			 Bullingdon 24 23 14 15 22 21 21 
			 Bullwood Hall 1 — — 8 6 2 5 
			 Camp Hill 8 12 8 12 5 5 — 
			 Canterbury 4 7 4 4 3 4 8 
			 Cardiff 14 11 15 19 14 3 4 
			 Castington 53 52 53 50 42 41 28 
			 Channings Wood 3 4 10 8 7 16 17 
			 Chelmsford 25 15 21 37 51 21 13 
			 Coldingley — — — — 2 7 3 
			 Cookham Wood 2 14 5 3 1 2 1 
			 Dartmoor 10 9 5 11 7 8 15 
			 Deerbolt 9 5 25 32 21 34 36 
			 Doncaster 30 25 22 24 45 28 16 
			 Dorchester 2 4 2 9 9 8 8 
			 Dovegate 29 46 75 34 55 41 15 
			 Dover — 10 4 3 4 12 26 
			 Downview 10 6 7 29 9 11 6 
			 Drake Hall 1 — — 1 1 — 1 
			 Durham 24 34 29 41 43 57 60 
			 East Sutton Park — 1 1 — — — — 
			 Eastwood Park 5 11 7 21 25 8 6 
			 Edmunds Hill — 9 20 9 13 2 5 
			 Elmley 23 25 20 30 17 27 39 
			 Erlestoke — — 2 2 2 9 6 
			 Everthorpe 2 2 2 9 13 12 6 
			 Exeter 12 11 2 7 11 8 6 
			 Featherstone 17 8 18 5 9 16 7 
			 Feltham 83 102 169 129 115 103 89 
			 Ford 1 3 7 5 2 4 3 
			 Forest Bank 39 62 75 82 50 33 28 
			 Foston Hall 28 14 8 11 25 25 12 
			 Frankland 12 5 13 9 10 19 13 
			 Full Sutton 7 11 11 17 12 8 19 
			 Garth 8 10 5 6 8 8 11 
			 Gartree — — 1 2 3 1 3 
			 Glen Parva 41 27 39 31 40 50 38 
			 Gloucester 12 13 6 12 13 6 6 
			 Grendon / Spring Hill — — — — — 1 — 
			 Guys Marsh 1 6 5 3 12 15 16 
			 Haslar — — — — — — 1 
			 Haverigg 2 6 2 1 4 17 10 
			 Hewell Cluster — — — — — — 9 
			 Hewell Grange — — — 2 — 1 — 
			 High Down 59 45 56 38 69 66 99 
			 Highpoint 46 20 18 13 22 20 25 
			 Hindley 25 23 13 30 55 41 50 
			 Hollesley Bay 18 4 3 — — — — 
			 Holloway 88 88 93 78 99 90 95 
			 Holme House 13 20 18 27 24 20 14 
			 Hull 16 27 29 33 23 30 20 
			 Huntercombe 15 18 15 14 32 22 31 
			 Kingston 2 1 — 1 2 — — 
			 Kirkham 1 — — — — 2 1 
			 Kirklevington — — — — — — 2 
			 Lancaster 1 — 3 1 2 1 2 
			 Lancaster Farms 20 9 27 46 51 31 16 
			 Leeds 56 75 39 36 16 18 17 
			 Leicester 15 11 5 7 16 7 9 
			 Lewes 14 20 10 15 13 14 20 
			 Leyhill — — 1 1 — 3 1 
			 Lincoln 20 11 21 20 15 22 34 
			 Lindholme 5 18 5 12 13 19 22 
			 Littlehey 6 12 10 10 5 2 1 
			 Liverpool 37 45 35 21 18 30 34 
			 Long Lartin 7 5 5 15 11 15 9 
			 Low Newton 27 16 24 27 19 18 24 
			 Lowdham Grange 4 4 12 16 34 39 31 
			 Maidstone 2 6 5 1 — 5 3 
			 Manchester 53 58 59 69 65 77 69 
			 Moorland 22 21 13 20 16 14 21 
			 Morton Hall 4 1 3 2 5 1 — 
			 Mount 5 13 7 8 15 20 20 
			 New Hall 25 21 14 23 57 46 24 
			 North Sea Camp 1 2 — — — 1 1 
			 Northallerton 6 11 13 10 6 5 5 
			 Norwich 24 24 17 18 17 1 3 
			 Nottingham 12 15 28 12 22 43 27 
			 Onley 68 86 13 27 29 23 12 
			 Pare 27 55 57 44 48 48 53 
			 Parkhurst 9 18 16 14 2 7 — 
			 Pentonville 113 90 94 120 59 61 86 
			 Peterborough — — — 72 134 111 75 
			 Portland 22 15 39 37 41 37 24 
			 Preston 10 9 17 24 29 44 47 
			 Ranby 9 8 3 3 16 16 26 
			 Reading 6 7 16 14 11 9 11 
			 Risley 15 18 26 32 28 23 21 
			 Rochester 5 15 16 23 13 4 29 
			 Rye Hill 18 20 38 65 47 41 14 
			 Send 2 4 — 2 3 1 4 
			 Shepton Mallet 2 1 — — — 1 1 
			 Shrewsbury 3 11 3 3 6 5 4 
			 Stafford 8 10 6 13 11 8 9 
			 Standford Hill — — — — 1 1 1 
			 Stocken 10 9 8 12 7 9 15 
			 Stoke Heath 47 20 37 52 63 65 53 
			 Styal 4 7 12 13 32 45 18 
			 Sudbury — 2 — — 1 — — 
			 Swaleside 29 17 16 7 10 5 7 
			 Swansea 5 6 4 3 5 — 3 
			 Swinfen Hall 7 8 4 10 9 9 10 
			 Thorn Cross 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 
			 Usk\Prescoed — — — — 1 1 2 
			 Verne 1 1 5 3 — — 1 
			 Wakefield 7 7 7 9 8 12 12 
			 Wandsworth 79 73 84 86 36 31 36 
			 Warren Hill — 12 19 34 35 46 43 
			 Wayland 7 11 8 2 9 10 18 
			 Wealstun — 2 — 3 3 6 12 
			 Weare 9 10 6 4 — — — 
			 Wellingborough 1 1 1 16 13 5 13 
			 Werrington 5 21 18 19 20 12 30 
			 Wetherby 9 11 70 66 56 35 39 
			 Whatton — 1 1 — 4 11 5 
			 Whitemoor 22 15 16 18 10 22 18 
			 Winchester 13 13 13 10 10 3 3 
			 Wolds 12 7 10 3 8 2 7 
			 Woodhill 16 35 39 71 68 52 39 
			 Wormwood Scrubs 54 37 69 57 54 69 62 
			 Wymott — 1 — 4 4 4 9 
			 Total 2,370 2,366 2,593 2,977 2,962 2,737 2,724 
		
	
	
		
			  Table 5: Prison er  on officer assault incidents in female prisons 
			  Establishment  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008 
			 Bronzefield — — 17 85 77 41 80 
			 Downview 10 6 7 29 9 11 6 
			 Drake Hall 1 — — 1 1 — 1 
			 East Sutton Park — 1 1 — — — — 
			 Eastwood Park 5 11 7 21 25 8 6 
			 Foston Hall 28 14 8 11 25 25 12 
			 Holloway 88 88 93 78 99 90 95 
			 Low Newton 27 16 24 27 19 18 24 
			 Morton Hall 4 1 3 2 5 1 — 
			 New Hall 25 21 14 23 57 46 24 
			 Send 2 4 — 2 3 1 4 
			 Styal 4 7 12 13 32 45 18 
			 Total 194 169 169 207 275 245 190 
		
	
	
		
			  Table 6: Prison er  on officer assault incidents in young offender institutions 
			  Establishment  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008 
			 Ashfield 124 62 71 152 127 86 128 
			 Aylesbury 12 15 5 15 18 13 27 
			 Brinsford 24 31 26 17 8 12 17 
			 Castington 53 52 53 50 42 41 28 
			 Cookham Wood 2 14 5 3 1 2 1 
			 Deerbolt 9 5 25 32 21 34 36 
			 Feltham 83 102 169 129 115 103 89 
			 Glen Parva 41 27 39 31 40 50 38 
			 Hindley 25 23 13 30 55 41 50 
			 Huntercombe 15 18 15 14 32 22 31 
			 Lancaster Farms 20 9 27 46 51 31 16 
			 Northallerton 6 11 13 10 6 5 5 
			 Portland 22 15 39 37 41 37 24 
			 Reading 6 7 16 14 11 9 11 
			 Rochester 5 15 16 23 13 4 29 
			 Stoke Heath 47 20 37 52 63 65 53 
			 Thorn Cross 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 
			 Warren Hill — 12 19 34 35 46 43 
			 Werrington 5 21 18 19 20 12 30 
			 Wetherby 9 11 70 66 56 35 39 
			 Total 509 473 677 775 758 649 696 
			 (1) Notes to assault incident tables :  1. Recent assaults data from prisons using the new NOMIS computer system (Albany, Camp Hill and Parkhurst) are excluded.  2. "—" indicates that there have either been no assaults in that period or that the data are not available or applicable for that period (for example, if the prison has been using a different reporting system or has re-roled). Those prisons affected by re-roling are listed in the following table.  3. Assault risk is unevenly distributed around the prison estate and changes over time. The following list contains the major changes such as prisons opening, closing and re-rolling etc. which affect assault figures. These need to be taken into account when interpreting changes from one year to the next. 
		
	
	
		
			  Prison  Year  Change 
			 Blakenhurst 2008 Merged to form HMP Hewell 
			 Hewell Grange 2008 Merged to form HMP Hewell 
			 Brockhill 2008 Merged to form HMP Hewell 
			 Cookham Wood 2008 Female to Under 18 Male 
			 Kennet 2007 First opened 
			 Brockhill 2006 Female to Male 
			 Bulwood Hall 2006 Female to Male 
			 Peterborough 2005 First opened 
			 Durham 2005 Female wing closed 
			 Onley 2005 YOI to YOI+Cat C 
			 Swinfen Hall 2005 YOI to YOI+Cat C 
			 Weare 2005 Closed 
			 Buckley Hall 2005 Female to Male 
			 Edmunds Hill 2005 Female to Male 
			 Winchester 2004 Female wing closed 
			 Bronzefield 2004 First opened 
			 Edmunds Hill 2003 First opened 
			 Warren Hill 2003 First opened 
			 Buckley Hall 2002 Male to Female 
			 Rochester 2002 Adult + YOI to YOI 
			 Downview 2002 Male to Female

Victims of Crime

Dominic Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether victims of crime  (a) are informed and  (b) have their consent requested before their details are passed to private sector firms undertaking research for his Department on levels of confidence in the criminal justice system.

Maria Eagle: There are two key Government surveys that interview victims of crime about their satisfaction with and confidence in the criminal justice system (CJS).
	The Home Office conducts the British crime survey (BCS) which looks at, among other things, the effectiveness and fairness of the CJS as viewed by the public, some of whom are victims.
	The BCS is a general population sample in which addresses are randomly selected from the Post Office Address File by the survey contractor. Other than the postal address, no information about the selected household is held by the contractor prior to being approached to obtain permission for them to take part in the survey.
	The Office for Criminal Justice Reform on behalf of the Ministry of Justice manage the Witness and Victim Satisfaction Survey (WAVES) which is a national survey designed to measure how satisfied victims and witnesses are with the service they get from the criminal justice system (CJS).
	It is permitted to share limited details without consent under the provisions of section 33 of the Data Protection Act 1998, which allows certain data to be shared for research purposes, so long as certain conditions are in place. In order to obtain a large representative sample of victims and witnesses, consent is not obtained at the initial stage; however, very strict protocols are in place to ensure that these conditions are met.
	The current contractor writes to all victims and witnesses identified by LCJBs and selected to participate before the telephone call, giving them the option to opt-out of the survey, in compliance with data protection guidelines. This gives victims and witnesses the opportunity to opt-out at the first point of contact.
	On calling those respondents who have not opted-out, interviewers restate the purpose of the survey; to improve services to victims and witnesses in the future. Respondents are then assured that their responses will remain confidential and again asked if they are happy to participate. Reassurance is given at every stage of the interview process that responses given will remain anonymous.
	The organisations undertaking both surveys are acting on behalf of the criminal justice system in order to help assess progress made at a local and national level against key CJS initiatives and to improve the future experiences of victims and witnesses. Both surveys have stringent measures in place to ensure individuals' anonymity is maintained and responses remain confidential. Respondents are given the opportunity to opt-out at point of first contact with the research organisations.

Prisoners: Self-harm

Paul Holmes: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 
	(1)  how many incidents of self-harm by  (a) male and  (b) female prisoners held in each young offenders' institution were recorded in each year since 2003;
	(2)  how many incidents of self-harm by  (a) male and  (b) female prisoners in each prison establishment were recorded in each year since 2003.

David Hanson: The National Offender Management Service has a broad, integrated and evidence-based prisoner suicide prevention and self harm management strategy that seeks to reduce the distress of all those in prison. This encompasses a wide spectrum of prison and Department of Health work around such issues as mental health, substance misuse and resettlement. Any prisoner identified as at risk of suicide or self-harm is cared for using the Assessment, Care in Custody and Teamwork (ACCT) procedures. Most self harm is not directly life threatening, but nevertheless can be extremely distressing for those who have to deal with it. A prisoner focused care planning system for those at risk, ACCT, (Assessment, Care in Custody and Teamwork), has helped prisons manage self harm. There are no easy answers to managing self harming behaviour but we remain committed to finding ways to improve further our management of it.
	The information is set out as follows. The NOMS Incident Reporting System processes high volumes of data which are constantly being updated. The figures provide a good indication of overall numbers of incidents but should not be interpreted as absolute.
	The instances of recorded self-harm by male prisoners, including young offenders (YOs) aged under-21, is summarised in table 1. Those incidents in current single-function young offender institutions (YOIs) are detailed in the notes of table 2.
	
		
			  Table 1: Self harm incidents by establishment (male) 
			  Prison  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008 
			 Belmarsh 75 123 90 76 88 83 
			 Manchester 284 208 219 200 206 153 
			 Woodhill 28 40 121 128 176 165 
			 Albany 51 73 25 6 (1)— (1)— 
			 Dovegate 151 79 126 197 150 126 
			 Garth 12 51 51 51 43 58 
			 Gartree 9 1 5 12 43 19 
			 Grendon/Spring Hill 10 2 (1)— 1 1 3 
			 Kingston (1)— 6 12 10 14 6 
			 Lowdham Grange 4 16 15 29 40 70 
			 Maidstone 9 11 20 10 15 13 
			 Parkhurst 170 139 82 158 79 (1)— 
			 Rye Hill 32 68 139 50 71 72 
			 Swaleside 11 18 8 26 83 59 
			 Acklington 20 40 75 97 45 112 
			 Blundeston 17 19 11 16 14 17 
			 Buckley Hall (1)— (1)— (1)— 43 23 24 
			 Bullwood Hall (1)— (1)— (1)— 15 6 7 
			 Edmunds Hill (1)— (1)— 11 17 22 21 
			 Kennet (1)— (1)— (1)— (1)— 1 2 
			 Wolds 10 6 6 16 19 19 
			 Ashwell (1)— 6 9 (1)— 14 9 
			 Camp Hill 58 22 28 15 20 (1)— 
			 Channings Wood 9 6 18 44 23 34 
			 Coldingley (1)— (1)— (1)— 1 3 2 
			 Dartmoor 23 21 33 52 36 29 
			 Erlestoke 3 (1)— 4 5 18 45 
			 Everthorpe 1 (1)— 7 21 42 42 
			 Featherstone 32 18 11 27 33 41 
			 Guys Marsh 32 16 6 30 60 64 
			 Haverigg 4 3 11 5 35 44 
			 Highpoint 41 33 30 67 60 114 
			 Lancaster (1)— (1)— 4 6 7 (1)— 
			 Littlehey 46 108 123 158 105 78 
			 Moorland 104 1 3 8 12 11 
			 Mount 5 6 24 22 28 20 
			 Ranby 8 4 8 27 39 68 
			 Risley 18 20 45 36 33 32 
			 Shepton Mallet 1 2 (1)— 1 2 1 
			 Stafford 39 61 82 66 97 71 
			 Stocken 26 11 35 25 37 (1)— 
			 Usk\Prescoed (1)— (1)— 1 (1)— 3 2 
			 Verne 9 3 7 4 (1)— 3 
			 Wayland 9 24 42 55 32 59 
			 Wealstun 14 9 34 30 34 35 
			 Weare 18 23 8 (1)— (1)— (1)— 
			 Wellingborough 19 14 2 27 18 49 
			 Whatton 1 4 (1)— 2 17 31 
			 Wymott (1)— 4 47 61 63 59 
			 Low Newton 6 (1)— (1)— (1)— (1)— (1)— 
			 Frankland 31 95 165 217 339 429 
			 Full Sutton 49 53 133 56 55 76 
			 Long Lartin 2 4 11 11 89 127 
			 Wakefield 44 85 126 176 114 93 
			 Whitemoor 60 75 136 122 80 37 
			 Dover 41 39 34 55 41 43 
			 Haslar 4 3 2 4 2 7 
			 Lindholme 9 7 18 36 57 59 
			 Altcourse 165 160 111 219 210 245 
			 Bedford 116 114 107 146 157 132 
			 Birmingham 83 81 207 604 528 447 
			 Blakenhurst 430 316 151 177 211 64 
			 Bristol 95 156 185 102 147 147 
			 Brixton 67 68 85 19 33 27 
			 Bullingdon 18 21 39 25 69 112 
			 Canterbury 2 12 10 10 5 15 
			 Cardiff 54 99 73 96 25 14 
			 Chelmsford 29 61 96 136 131 111 
			 Doncaster 317 369 336 276 268 405 
			 Dorchester 27 36 25 48 53 67 
			 Durham 201 165 268 220 206 193 
			 Elmley 22 82 139 92 96 102 
			 Exeter 31 65 107 84 56 117 
			 Forest Bank 214 257 197 333 317 257 
			 Gloucester 97 83 110 83 88 95 
			 Hewell Cluster (1)— (1)— (1)— (1)— (1)— 83 
			 High Down 54 187 117 205 154 136 
			 Holme House 40 74 63 102 81 78 
			 Hull 143 176 199 110 107 115 
			 Leeds 310 388 223 148 147 92 
			 Leicester 122 143 136 170 153 84 
			 Lewes 128 182 134 123 78 120 
			 Lincoln 113 160 134 165 215 182 
			 Liverpool 370 331 270 178 131 243 
			 Norwich 213 264 234 338 204 202 
			 Nottingham 174 136 91 160 194 210 
			 Parc 327 235 314 250 152 229 
			 Pentonville 159 72 204 243 169 179 
			 Preston 41 36 105 222 239 223 
			 Shrewsbury 36 67 59 57 81 51 
			 Swansea 45 28 61 57 34 82 
			 Wandsworth 54 194 55 61 141 117 
			 Winchester 171 210 149 136 52 104 
			 Wormwood Scrubs 57 124 50 128 119 123 
			 Onley 194 87 88 102 157 146 
			 Swinfen Hall 26 74 51 81 124 127 
			 Hollesley Bay 5 (1)— (1)— 2 1 6 
			 Moorland Open (Hatfield) (1)— (1)— (1)— (1)— (1)— 1 
			 Ford 5 6 (1)— 5 3 (1)— 
			 Kirkham 1 1 (1)— 2 (1)— 1 
			 Leyhill (1)— 1 2 5 4 3 
			 North Sea Camp 1 (1)— 1 (1)— 1 2 
			 Standford Hill 1 (1)— 2 (1)— (1)— 1 
			 Sudbury (1)— (1)— (1)— 1 (1)— (1)— 
			 Peterborough (1)— (1)— 121 199 200 273 
			 Latchmere House (1)— (1)— (1)— (1)— 1 (1)— 
			 Brinsford 66 23 71 102 83 85 
			 Castington 87 83 92 104 64 62 
			 Feltham 100 159 141 126 219 203 
			 Hindley 77 36 160 71 41 81 
			 Lancaster Farms 23. 15 92 153 21 5 
			 Stoke Heath 75 230 192 217 226 321 
			 Rochester 9 52 15 46 47 84 
			 Northallerton 27 59 14 35 30 27 
			 Aylesbury 18 14 113 307 201 210 
			 Deerbolt 68 59 100 106 86 122 
			 Glen Parva 197 217 232 148 247 231 
			 Portland 55 115 109 160 170 76 
			 Reading 21 24 52 37 34 23 
			 Ashfield 236 217 165 209 130 92 
			 Cookham Wood (1)— (1)— (1)— (1)— (1)— 9 
			 Warren Hill 8 20 13 15 12 75 
			 Huntercombe 28 36 64 61 79 79 
			 Werrington 2 10 25 20 11 52 
			 Wetherby (1)— (1)— 59 34 10 23 
			 Thorn Cross 1 3 1 2 3 (1)— 
		
	
	Table two details the instances of recorded self-harm by females, including young offenders (YOs) aged under-21. Female YOs are not held in stand-alone female YOIs. Rather they are held within the adult female prison population.
	
		
			  Table 2: Self harm incidents by establishment (female) 
			  Prison  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008 
			 Askham Grange 1 (1)— (1)— (1)— (1)— (1)— 
			 Brockhill* 623 475 261 219 (1)— (1)— 
			 Bronzefield (1)— 205 827 1,165 1,744 1,517 
			 Buckley Hall* 758 1,079 596 (1)— (1)— (1)— 
			 Bullwood Hall* 282 1,008 1,418 227 (1)— (1)— 
			 Cookham Wood* 72 162 197 126 182 (1)— 
			 Downview 130 70 258 233 21 8 
			 Drake Hall 8 7 28 17 41 42 
			 Durham* 282 231 54 (1)— (1)— (1)— 
			 Eastwood Park 683 1,139 2,441 2,074 1,965 2,584 
			 Edmunds Hill* 156 209 (1)— (1)— (1)— (1)— 
			 Foston Hall 24 120 616 608 1,160 919 
			 Holloway 957 1,179 1,396 1,470 1,099 1,829 
			 Low Newton 373 719 1,118 736 970 829 
			 Morton Hall 60 19 29 67 50 77 
			 New Hall 1,588 1,116 1,053 1,261 1,193 1,082 
			 Peterborough — — 800 1,126 1,041 1,337 
			 Send 54 75 97 177 158 233 
			 Styal 368 1,050 1,388 1,574 1,235 2,103 
			 Winchester* 18 8 (1)— (1)— (1)— (1)— 
			 (1) Indicates that there have either been no self harm incidents in that period or that the data are not available or applicable for that period (for example, if the prison has been using a different reporting system or has re-roled). Those prisons affected by re-roling are listed in the following table.  Notes: 1. Figures refer to total numbers of self harm incidents and not numbers of individual prisoners. 2. Self harm incidents are as reported on the NOMS Incident Reporting System. Figures exclude recent numbers for C-NOMIS sites Albany, Camp Hill and Parkhurst. 3. Self harm risk is unevenly distributed around the prison estate and changes over time. The following list contains the major changes such as prisons opening, closing and re-rolling etc. which affect self harm figures. These need to be taken into account when interpreting changes from one year to the next. 
		
	
	
		
			   Prison  Change 
			 2008 Blakenhurst Merged to form HMP Hewell 
			 2008 Hewell Grange Merged to form HMP Hewell 
			 2008 Brockhill Merged to form HMP Hewell 
			 2008 Cookham Wood Female to under 18 Male 
			 2007 Kennet First opened 
			 2006 Brockhill Female to Male 
			 2006 Bulwood Hall Female to Male 
			 2005 Peterborough First opened 
			 2005 Durham Female wing closed 
			 2005 Onley YOI to YOI+Cat C 
			 2005 Swinfen Hall YOI to YOI+Cat C 
			 2005 Weare Closed 
			 2005 Buckley Hall Female to Male 
			 2005 Edmunds Hill Female to Male 
			 2004 Winchester Female wing closed 
			 2004 Bronzefield First opened 
			 2003 Edmunds Hill First opened

Young Offenders: Reoffenders

David Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what percentage of  (a) people and  (b) women aged from 18 to 24 years old who received a criminal conviction in the last 12 months had previously been convicted of one or more criminal offences when under the age of 18.

David Hanson: Data held by the Ministry of Justice show that, of the 128,000 offenders aged between 18 and 24 who were sentenced by courts in England and Wales in 2007 and whose sentence was recorded on the police national computer, 40 per cent. (51,000) had previously been convicted under the age of 18. The equivalent figure for female offenders is 29 per cent. (4,600 out of a total of 15,900 offenders).
	These figures have been drawn from the police's administrative IT system which, as with any large scale recording system, is subject to possible errors with data entry and processing. The figures are provisional and subject to change as more information is recorded by the police.
	Overall the number of adult reoffences has fallen 23 per cent. between 2000 and 2006, and in particular there has been a reduction of 13 per cent. between 2005 and 2006. The number of reoffences classified as serious fell by 11.1 per cent. from 2000 to 2006.
	The number of young people entering the criminal justice system for the first time is falling. The number in England fell from 103,955 in 2006-07, to 93.601 in 2007-08, a drop of 10 per cent.
	The rate of reoffences committed fell by 1.5 per cent. from 125.0 offences per 100 offenders in 2005 to 123.1 in 2006. The rate of reoffences classified as serious fell by 8.0 per cent. from 0.90 serious offences per 100 offenders in 2005 to 0.83 in 2006.